Darwinists top the censorship food chain
AGGreen
Printer-friendly version
Darwinists top the censorship food chain
Phyllis Schlafly (back to web version) | Send
December 27, 2004
The most censored speech in the United States today is not flag-burning,
pornography or the press. The worst censors are those who prohibit classroom
criticism of the theory of evolution.
A Chinese scholar observed, "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the
government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."
Polls show that the vast majority of Americans reject the theory of
evolution, as have great scientists such as William Thomas Kelvin and Louis
Pasteur. But that does not stop an intolerant minority from trying to impose
a belief in the ape-to-man theory on everyone else.
Local school boards have finally had enough of this tyranny. From Georgia to
Pennsylvania to Ohio to Wisconsin to Kansas, school boards are finally
moving toward allowing criticism of Darwin's theory.
The Darwinists have propped up their classroom dominance by the persistent
use of frauds and flacks. The fraudulent pro-evolution embryo drawings of
Ernst Haeckel littered schoolbooks for 100 years, and it took specific
action by the Texas Board of Education to keep them out of current textbooks
even after the New York Times exposed Haeckel's deception.
Many textbooks feature pictures of giraffes stretching their necks to feed
high off of trees, but genetics and observed feeding habits disprove that as
a basis for evolution of their long necks. Moreover, the striking beauty of
the colored pattern on the giraffes illustrates that design, not merely
usefulness, is what animates our world.
Continued censorship of criticism invites additional fraud, so evolution has
suffered more embarrassments than any other scientific theory. The Piltdown
man was a lie taught to schoolchildren for decades, even featured in the
John Scopes Monkey Trial textbook, and only five years ago a dinosaur-bird
fossil hoax was presented as true on the glossy pages of National
Geographic.
If Darwinists want to teach that whales, which are mammals, evolved from
black bears swimming with their mouths open, we should surely be entitled to
criticize that. Yet school libraries have refused to accept books critical
of evolution, even when written by college professors.
Responding to the majority of their constituents, Georgia's Cobb County
recently authorized a textbook disclaimer saying "Evolution is a theory, not
a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be
approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
The American Civil Liberties Union claims this is unconstitutional and is
seeking out supremacist judges to order classroom curricula to continue the
censorship and forbid an open mind about evolution. If the theory of
evolution were well supported, there would be no reason to oppose open
debate about scientific claims.
In December 2004, a world-famous champion of atheism, Antony Flew, announced
his conversion to acceptance of intelligent design underlying our world. The
Dallas Morning News observed, "If the scientific data are compelling enough
to cause an atheist academic of Flew's reputation to recant most of his
life's work, why shouldn't Texas schoolchildren be taught the controversy?"
At 81, Flew can speak out because he is now free from the peer pressure that
silences younger colleagues who fear loss of jobs, funding, or even dreams
of winning a Nobel Prize. Evolution critics Fred Hoyle and Raymond Damadian
were unjustly denied Nobel Prizes and their work was instead recognized by
awards to less-deserving others.
Darwinists know they cannot persuade skeptical adults, so they try to
capture impressionable schoolchildren. At our expense and against our
wishes, children are taught that the world exists only for what is useful,
not by design.
To typical schoolchildren full of wonder, we live in a world best described
as a marvelous work of art. The snowflakes that grace us at Christmastime
typify the artistic beauty that bestows joy on all ages but, like an acid,
evolution corrodes this inborn appreciation of beauty and falsely trains
children to view themselves as mere animals no more worthy than dogs or
cats.
There is a strong correlation between belief in natural selection and
liberal views on government control, pornography, prayer in schools,
abortion, gun control, economic freedom, and even animal rights. For the
most part, the schools in the blue states carried in the 2004 presidential
election by U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., are strongly pro-evolution, while
the red states carried by President George W. Bush allow debate and dissent.
It should surprise no one that the United States, land of the free and home
of the brave, has the lowest percentage of evolution believers in the world.
The highest percentage lived in the former East Germany.
The U.S. Senate of former Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., quietly
slipped a provision into the No Child Left Behind Act that requires, by the
2007-2008 school year, science testing by grade 5. That gives censors the
authority to force 10-year-olds to believe and defend evolution.
It is long past time for parents to realize they have the right and duty to
protect their children from the intolerant evolutionists. Hooray for
courageous school boards that are finally rejecting censorship and allowing
debate.
©2004 Copley News Service
Stelios Zacharias
wrote:
>townhall.com
>
>Printer-friendly version
>Darwinists top the censorship food chain
>Phyllis Schlafly (back to web version) | Send
>
>
>December 27, 2004
<snip article>
And this is relevant and on-topic, how exactly?
Stelios
--
The address in the headers is real and does not need de-mungeing
Alexander Arnakis
>pornography or the press. The worst censors are those who prohibit classroom
>criticism of the theory of evolution.
>
>evolution, as have great scientists such as William Thomas Kelvin and Louis
>Pasteur. But that does not stop an intolerant minority from trying to impose
>a belief in the ape-to-man theory on everyone else.
>
Let's hope that the Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and other
non-literalist Christians help to hold the line against this
anti-evolution claptrap. The anti-evolutionists would have us believe
that the earth was created no more than 10,000 years ago, and that
everything in it sprang full-blown instantly. Sorry, it doesn't work
that way.
Evolution is not at all inconsistent with a divine creative plan.
After all, God can choose the *means* by which He carries out His
purposes. We, as fallible human beings, can observe the results, and
even, with diligent inquiry, probe the means by which these results
came about. What we can't know are God's ultimate purposes, which by
faith we presume to be good.
The great mistake of the anti-evolutionists is to put literal stock in
every word of the Bible (especially Genesis), when a more reasonable
approach -- one endorsed by Holy Tradition -- is to treat some of it
as metaphor. Face it, the people writing Genesis just didn't have the
scientific knowledge that we have today.
The fact is that teaching the various alternatives to the theory of
evolution gives them an undeserved legitimacy, which short-changes
students as they pursue higher education.
It may be true that the vast majority of Americans reject the theory
of evolution. All that means is that the American educational system
is failing in this regard. Americans reject evolution mostly because
they don't understand it.
Learner
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> Let's hope that the Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and other
> non-literalist Christians help to hold the line against this
> anti-evolution claptrap.
The would be very difficult.
The early Church and Church Fathers believed in the literal reading of
the Genesis account of the creation of the universe. Justin Martyr,
Ireanaeus, Clement, John Chrysostom, and Basil all believed in the
creation account of Genesis. However,Justin Martyr and Ireanaeus did
not insist that the days were literally 24 hours, nor did Origen or
Clement.
However, many Church Fathers believed these days to be 24 hour periods
including Theophilus of Antioch, Methodius, Lactantius, Ephrem the
Syrian, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Basil of Caesarea.
Learner
Stelios Zacharias
wrote:
>
>Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>
>> Let's hope that the Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and other
>> non-literalist Christians help to hold the line against this
>> anti-evolution claptrap.
>
>The would be very difficult.
>
>The early Church and Church Fathers believed in the literal reading of
>the Genesis account of the creation of the universe. Justin Martyr,
>Ireanaeus, Clement, John Chrysostom, and Basil all believed in the
>creation account of Genesis. However,Justin Martyr and Ireanaeus did
>not insist that the days were literally 24 hours, nor did Origen or
>Clement.
Let me get this straight, Learner:
The Church Fathers believed in the literal reading of the Genesis
account of the creation, but they did not instst on the days
being literally 24 hours long?
Is selective literalism still literalism?
Learner
Learner
Joe Orthodox
If the writer doesn't believe in a 24 hour day, then it's not a literal
reading. Clement believed Genesis to be figurative, not literal. As
far as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and John Chrysostom are concerned, it's
unclear whether they took Genesis literally. However, it's not relevant
to the Faith and canon law. Whatever anyone personally opines about
Genesis is only that - opinion - because the Bible is not a collection
of science books.
Joe Orthodox
Stelios, "Learner" isn't Orthodox and he's been pulling these stunts for
the last couple of years - selective logic, selective misquotes,
selective fact-checking, selective ad hominem, poisoning-the-well
attacks against the Orthodox Church and the Fathers... you get the idea.
Joe Orthodox
particular time period when the sun is up, and when it's down they would
call that "night." To call a day a thousand years is already breaking
away from a literal reading of Genesis, and thusly it's literal use of
the word "day", as the sun obviously doesn't stay up for that long.
Learner
Joe "natural selection" Orthodox wrote:
> If the writer doesn't believe in a 24 hour day, then it's not a
literal
> reading.
It would be difficult to have a 24 hour day prior to the creation of
the sun. Whether, one or another, Church Father believed these days to
be 24 hour periods is not the point, but is a diversion from the issue
at hand. There were many Church Fathers who believed these days were 24
hour periods
including Theophilus of Antioch, Methodius, Lactantius, Ephrem the
Syrian, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Basil of Caesarea.
> Clement believed Genesis to be figurative, not literal. As
> far as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and John Chrysostom are concerned,
it's
> unclear whether they took Genesis literally.
Regardless of the number of hours they assigned to a day, they all
considered the Genesis account of creation to be the truth. There
were alternative explanations for the existence of life, such as
spontaneous generation, which the Church Fathers rejected in favor of
Genesis.
> However, it's not relevant to the Faith and canon law.
Really? I can ignore the canon law which prohibits me from seeing a
Jewish doctor in the student health clinic, and I can ignore the Bible?
What good is canon law?
As far as faith goes, can I reject what the Church claims to be God's
Word as well as the Church's historical interpretation of this Word and
still have "faith"?
Faith in what?
It is interesting to watch you twist logic to defend your cult!
> Whatever anyone personally opines about Genesis is only that -
opinion -
> because the Bible is not a collection of science books.
Would you also say the the Orthodox Church's historic opinion on
Genesis is the same? If I can now dismiss the Church's historic
interpretation of creation, then the Church has been wrong for 2000
years!
Learner
Learner
Learner
Learner
Joe Orthodox wrote:
> I think by the Scripture's use of the word "day" it means that
> particular time period when the sun is up, and when it's down they
would
> call that "night."
It can mean both day time as well as a 24 hour period in Hebrew.
> To call a day a thousand years is already breaking
> away from a literal reading of Genesis, and thusly it's literal use
of
> the word "day", as the sun obviously doesn't stay up for that long.
I agree.
The Church Fathers believed the creation account of Genesis [to one
degree literalism, or another] which contradicts evolution.
Modern Orthodox thinkers, such as Father Florovsky, recognize this
problem and attempt to create new ideas such as "neo-patristic
synthesis" - which is nothing more than a new "spin" on the old
Orthodox practice of reading modern ideas back into the works of the
Church Fathers.
Learner
aggreen
***So, Leanrer...you are now a slime bucket heretic!
Al
aggreen
degree literalism, or another] which contradicts evolution.
***So, Learner, what did the Church Fathers know about the theory of
evolution that caused them to reject it? What is your heretical opinion
on this?
Al
AGGreen
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104254335....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
***Of course, what did they in their unscientific minds know back then? Just
because they believed this a millenium and a half ago doesn't make it
necessarily so.
Al
AGGreen
"Stelios Zacharias" <goatskin...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5773t09l5ugi18dca...@4ax.com...
***Genesis doesn't define the length of a day. It's foolish to believe that
a day in creation equals a Rolex 24 hours today! <G>
Al
AGGreen
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104258113....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Joe Orthodox
> Joe "God's Selection" Orthodox wrote:
>
>
>>If the writer doesn't believe in a 24 hour day, then it's not a
>
> literal
>
>>reading.
>
>
> It would be difficult to have a 24 hour day prior to the creation of
> the sun. Whether, one or another, Church Father believed these days to
> be 24 hour periods is not the point, but is a diversion from the issue
> at hand. There were many Church Fathers who believed these days were 24
> hour periods
> including Theophilus of Antioch, Methodius, Lactantius, Ephrem the
> Syrian, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Basil of Caesarea.
No, the issue at hand is whether you got your facts wrong again, for the
sake of the harangue of the day.
>>Clement believed Genesis to be figurative, not literal. As
>>far as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and John Chrysostom are concerned,
>
> it's
>
>>unclear whether they took Genesis literally.
>
>
> Regardless of the number of hours they assigned to a day, they all
> considered the Genesis account of creation to be the truth. There
There are different layers of truth in Scripture, Lerner. The
overriding concern of the Church is the spiritual truths elucidated by
the Word. There are certainly historical truths, and some not-so
historical stories, and there could be some truths in accord with
science. However, the Church doesn't use the Bible as an official tool
of science, unlike your co-religionists.
> were alternative explanations for the existence of life, such as
> spontaneous generation, which the Church Fathers rejected in favor of
> Genesis.
You can reject spontaneous generation, and yet reject a literalist
interpretation of Genesis. Showing the former doesn't prove one accepts
a literal reading.
>>However, it's not relevant to the Faith and canon law.
>
>
> Really? I can ignore the canon law which prohibits me from seeing a
> Jewish doctor in the student health clinic, and I can ignore the Bible?
> What good is canon law?
What are you talking about? Is English grammar so hard for you? What
one Father writes about the length of a day in Genesis is his opinion
only. There's no canon law stating a day equals a thousand years or
twenty-four hours. If you are going to pretend such exists, then
provide the canon law.
> As far as faith goes, can I reject what the Church claims to be God's
> Word as well as the Church's historical interpretation of this Word and
> still have "faith"?
>
> Faith in what?
And you've been spanked on this before, Steve-O. You're committing the
fallacy of division. The Church isn't one Church Father or one Church
Father writing. Our canon laws are hammered out in councils. Wake up,
Lerner.
> It is interesting to watch you twist logic to defend your cult!
Cult? Lerner, the OC is the furthest thing from a cult, in style and
substance. This sounds funny coming from someone who joined a church
that even you have labelled as New Age. The fact is, we don't have Waco
seiges or personality cults telling us to kill ourselves and our
children. That would be in your backyard.
>>Whatever anyone personally opines about Genesis is only that -
>
> opinion -
>
>>because the Bible is not a collection of science books.
>
>
> Would you also say the the Orthodox Church's historic opinion on
> Genesis is the same? If I can now dismiss the Church's historic
> interpretation of creation, then the Church has been wrong for 2000
> years!
>
> Learner
Once more, you demonstrate you can't put two and two together. Perhaps
you can, but you'll choose to harangue instead. Read carefully, Stevie.
"The Church" has put forth no opinion on whether the events in Genesis
support a short creation period or an evolutionary period. What the
Church does say, and the Fathers unanimously, is that God's hand is
involved IF evolution is true.
Now that you've opened your ignorance about the OC for our entertainment
today, how about telling us what your Calvary Chapel believes? Do they
believe the events in Genesis occurred over seven, twenty-four hour
days? Is that what you believe?
AGGreen
"Joe Orthodox" <JoeOr...@spamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:4WnAd.179222$T02....@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> > It is interesting to watch you twist logic to defend your cult!
>
> Cult? Lerner, the OC is the furthest thing from a cult, in style and
> substance. This sounds funny coming from someone who joined a church
> that even you have labelled as New Age. The fact is, we don't have Waco
> seiges or personality cults telling us to kill ourselves and our
> children. That would be in your backyard.
***Joe, is Learner a member of one of those Jim Jones Kool-Aid drinking
cults?
>
>
> >>Whatever anyone personally opines about Genesis is only that -
> >
> > opinion -
> >
> >>because the Bible is not a collection of science books.
> >
> >
> > Would you also say the the Orthodox Church's historic opinion on
> > Genesis is the same? If I can now dismiss the Church's historic
> > interpretation of creation, then the Church has been wrong for 2000
> > years!
> >
> > Learner
>
> Once more, you demonstrate you can't put two and two together. Perhaps
> you can, but you'll choose to harangue instead. Read carefully, Stevie.
> "The Church" has put forth no opinion on whether the events in Genesis
> support a short creation period or an evolutionary period. What the
> Church does say, and the Fathers unanimously, is that God's hand is
> involved IF evolution is true.
>
> Now that you've opened your ignorance about the OC for our entertainment
> today, how about telling us what your Calvary Chapel believes? Do they
> believe the events in Genesis occurred over seven, twenty-four hour
> days? Is that what you believe?
***Here's the Calvary Chapel Statement of Belief!!!! It doesn't say
anything. C.C. must be a non-committal religion. Only a Jezabel could sucker
a guy from the True Church into this "religion."
The Calvary Chapel Church has been formed as a fellowship of believers in
the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our supreme desire is to know Christ and be
conformed into His image by the power of the Holy Spirit. We are not a
denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only
their over-emphasis of doctrinal differences that have led to the division
of the body of Christ. We believe that the only true basis of Christian
fellowship is His (Agape) love, which is greater than any differences we
possess and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.
We Believe: worship of God should be Spiritual.
Therefore: We remain flexible and yielded to the Holy Spirit to direct our
worship.
We Believe: worship of God should be Inspirational.
Therefore: We give a great place to music in our worship.
We Believe: worship of God should be Intelligent.
Therefore: Our services are designed with great emphasis upon teaching of
the Word of God that He might instruct us how He should be worshipped.
We Believe: worship of God is Fruitful.
Therefore: We look for His Love in our lives as the supreme manifestation
that we have truly been worshipping Him.
AGGreen
founded in California (surprise!) in 1965 by a guy named Chuckie Smith
(Smith?).
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/calvary.html
AGGreen
"AGGreen" <A...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:cqt42...@enews3.newsguy.com...
***There's more. Here's a web page dedicated to explaining what the Cavalry
Chapel is all about. The author was once an adherent, but quit because he
didn't think Chuckie Smith got it all right.
http://home.wmis.net/~ixthys/fabuqa.htm
AGGreen
***Why don't we turn the tables on Stevie Learner. There's a Calvary Chapel
NG: alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel. Let's begin posting Orthodox
stuff there!!! <G>
Al
Learner
The usual nonsense which does not answer the issue at hand.
> > were alternative explanations for the existence of life, such as
> > spontaneous generation, which the Church Fathers rejected in favor
of
> > Genesis.
> You can reject spontaneous generation, and yet reject a literalist
> interpretation of Genesis. Showing the former doesn't prove one
accepts
> a literal reading.
You miss the point - once again - but what else is new? There were
alternative explanations for creation such as sponatneous generation
[and I doubt that you have a clue as to what this is]. Eusebius of
Caesarea rejected this idea because it was incompatible with the
Biblical account of the creation, and accepted Genesis.
> > Really? I can ignore the canon law which prohibits me from seeing
a
> > Jewish doctor in the student health clinic, and I can ignore the
Bible?
> > What good is canon law?
> What are you talking about? Is English grammar so hard for you?
What
> one Father writes about the length of a day in Genesis is his opinion
> only. There's no canon law stating a day equals a thousand years or
> twenty-four hours. If you are going to pretend such exists, then
> provide the canon law.
So on what, or on whom, does the Church base its opinion?
Also, the length of the day is really not the issue. The issue is: did
any Church Father reject the idea that God created all of the animals
in favor of the idea that mutation and natural selection could, and
did, create entirely new species of animals after the "initial"
creation?
Answer the question, if you can.....
> > As far as faith goes, can I reject what the Church claims to be
God's
> > Word as well as the Church's historical interpretation of this Word
and
> > still have "faith"?
> > Faith in what?
> And you've been spanked on this before, Steve-O. You're committing
the
> fallacy of division. The Church isn't one Church Father or one
Church
> Father writing. Our canon laws are hammered out in councils. Wake
up,
> Lerner.
So why is it that not all canon laws or Church councils are accepted by
your Church?
> > It is interesting to watch you twist logic to defend your cult!
>
> Cult? Lerner, the OC is the furthest thing from a cult, in style and
> substance.
Any group which claims to have the sole monopoly on the truth is a
cult.
> This sounds funny coming from someone who joined a church
> that even you have labelled as New Age. The fact is, we don't have
Waco
> seiges or personality cults telling us to kill ourselves and our
> children. That would be in your backyard.
At least the CC didn't burn other Christians [ie the Old Believers] as
they prayed in their Churches.
Really, insulting CC does bother me. In fact, I would bet that I could
list more objections to this group than you ever could.
> > Would you also say the the Orthodox Church's historic opinion on
> > Genesis is the same? If I can now dismiss the Church's historic
> > interpretation of creation, then the Church has been wrong for 2000
> > years!
> Once more, you demonstrate you can't put two and two together.
Perhaps
> you can, but you'll choose to harangue instead. Read carefully,
Stevie.
> "The Church" has put forth no opinion on whether the events in
Genesis
> support a short creation period or an evolutionary period. What the
> Church does say, and the Fathers unanimously, is that God's hand is
> involved IF evolution is true.
Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of your own Church.
The Orthodox Church is in a peculiar dilemma with regards to evolution.
On one hand, the traditional teachings of the church, accepts the
creation story of Genesis - no matter how one attempts to modify the
literal
reading of the text. So the Orthodox cannot defend evolution from
Chruch Tradition.
On the other hand, most believe that the evidence for evolution is so
overwhelming that Orthodoxy is all but obligated to accept it as fact,
and this presents a huge dilemma. If evolution is correct, then Church
Tradition, which has historically accepted the creation story of
Genesis,
is dead wrong. And, if one part of Tradition is wrong, any part could
also be wrong. This makes Orthodoxy fallible.
So Orthodoxy must either admit that it has been wrong all along - which
would put its entire doctrine in jeopardy, or Orthodoxy must continue
to deny evolution in favor of its Tradition, which recognizes the
creation account of Genesis. Bu this would force the Church to take a
position contrary to scientific evidence.
> Now that you've opened your ignorance about the OC for our
entertainment
> today, how about telling us what your Calvary Chapel believes? Do
they
> believe the events in Genesis occurred over seven, twenty-four hour
> days? Is that what you believe?
They are creationist to the core. As for me, I find problems in both
evolution and creationism.
By the way, icons were traditionally dated from the creation of the
world, which Orthodoxy Tradition claims to be September 1, 5508 B.C.
Do any Orthodox accept this date as valid today?
Let's face it, science has altered Orthodox belief, and has forced the
Orthodox Church to abandon, or at least ignore, its historic
Traditions. Any Orthodox believer who accepts evolution is doing so
not because of any Biblical references, statements of any Church
Fathers, or any canon or ecclesiastical tradition.
Dance around the issue, cast insults, do whatever. The fact of the
matter is that evolution, and the Orthodox Church's reaction to it, has
many serious implications for the veracity of Orthodox Tradition.
Learner
Learner
with CC.
The difference between us, Alfred, is that I have enough self-esteem
and do not need to identify with a larger group to feel good about
myself.
Learner
Learner
aggreen wrote:
> ***So, Learner...Orthodoxy is now a cult?
The Orthodox Church has some of the key features of a cult. It
believes that it holds the sole monopoly on all truth, for example.
But so do the Moonies, JWs and the Mormons.
> ***So, Leanrer...you are now a slime bucket heretic!
Cults also teach their members that people who have other opinions are
evil and, in some cases, sub-human.
Learner
Stephen M. Adams
>The fact is that teaching the various alternatives to the theory of
>evolution gives them an undeserved legitimacy, which short-changes
>students as they pursue higher education.
What about simple criticism of methods and theories used by those who
push Darwinian evolution? In other words, not pushing any specific
alternative, but seeking to critique the current theories and show
that they are in error in at least some ways?
>It may be true that the vast majority of Americans reject the theory
>of evolution. All that means is that the American educational system
>is failing in this regard. Americans reject evolution mostly because
>they don't understand it.
Probably true in the majority of cases. It is equally true that those
who hold to pure Darwinian evolution will not brook ANY kind of criticism
that comes from outside the "fraternity" and will almost invariable try
to write off the critic as a religious nutcase.
My answer to all of this is that I do not know, that I am seeking knowledge
and that I will criticise what I see as erroneous in any system of belief,
including evolution.
Personally, I am convinced that the earth is quite old, that some kind
of design is involved and that changes within species occur. Beyond that,
color me skeptical.
It's enough to know that "In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth..." - from a spiritual perspective, the "how" isn't all that
imnportant.
-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Learner
and grammatical methods of Biblical hermeneutics.
The Hebrew word for day (yom) *can* refer to a time period longer than
24 hours - for example the "day of the Lord".
However, when it is attached to a numerical adjective, it can only
refer to a 24 hour period, for example, the "second day" in Numbers
7:12-78.
The "days" of Genesis 1:14 must be literal because, if they are not,
the word "years" in the same verse would be meaningless.
There is not way that a Hebrew/Jew could have understood God's days of
creation to be longer than 24 hours, because there is a clear analogy
with man's work week and Sabbath rest in Exodus 20:11;31:15-17. So,
these six "days" (plural) cannot be
figurative days but are literal days.
However, the main issue, which I doubt that you will understand, is
that lengthening the days of Genesis to somehow accommodate the
evolution's timetable of earth history, does not solve a larger
problem.
Even if these "days" are millions, or billions of years, the
"revealed" events of creation in Genesis are in reverse order from the
evolutionary sequence of events - the earth was created before the sun,
whales were created before land mammals, and birds were created before
reptiles.
Learner
Stephen M. Adams
>aggreen wrote:
>
>> ***So, Learner...Orthodoxy is now a cult?
>
>The Orthodox Church has some of the key features of a cult. It
>believes that it holds the sole monopoly on all truth, for example.
>But so do the Moonies, JWs and the Mormons.
And so do many Protestant churches. Most certainly the church I
attended before finding the Orthodox Church felt (and continues
to feel) that they are the sole competant interpreters of Scripture
and ALL other churches are wrong.
>> ***So, Leanrer...you are now a slime bucket heretic!
>
>Cults also teach their members that people who have other opinions are
>evil and, in some cases, sub-human.
This is NOT the teaching of the Orthodox Church. It may be Al's personal
opinion, but the Church teaches no such thing.
Joe Orthodox
True. You only feel good about yourself when you fling mud at Orthodox
Christians, not by defending a positive and viable alternative point of
view.
Learner
here to sell another brand of snake oil.
This happens to be an Orthodox discussion group, so, unlike many of
your brethren, I actually discuss the claims made by the Orthodox
Church and examine how these claims measure up according to the
historical evidence.
Perhaps you consider ANY criticism of Orthodoxy as "flinging mud", but
that is simply too bad.
Learner
Joe Orthodox
> The usual nonsense which does not answer the issue at hand.
No, the point is that you got your facts wrong as usual and now you're
flailing in the wind trying to recover your bearings.
>>>were alternative explanations for the existence of life, such as
>>>spontaneous generation, which the Church Fathers rejected in favor
>
> of
>
>>>Genesis.
>
>
>>You can reject spontaneous generation, and yet reject a literalist
>>interpretation of Genesis. Showing the former doesn't prove one
>
> accepts
>
>>a literal reading.
>
>
> You miss the point - once again - but what else is new? There were
> alternative explanations for creation such as sponatneous generation
> [and I doubt that you have a clue as to what this is]. Eusebius of
> Caesarea rejected this idea because it was incompatible with the
> Biblical account of the creation, and accepted Genesis.
No, the point is that you got your facts wrong as usual and now you're
flailing in the wind trying to recover your bearings. What else is new.
[snip diversions]
> Also, the length of the day is really not the issue. The issue is: did
No, the point is that you got your facts wrong as usual and now you're
flailing in the wind trying to recover your bearings. What else is new.
> any Church Father reject the idea that God created all of the animals
> in favor of the idea that mutation and natural selection could, and
> did, create entirely new species of animals after the "initial"
> creation?
>
> Answer the question, if you can.....
Various Fathers have had various ideas about the origin of man and how
to reconcile the science and philosophy of their day with Genesis.
You're making intellectual problems for yourself for the sake of a
failed harangue.
> Any group which claims to have the sole monopoly on the truth is a
> cult.
Christianity as a religion claims such a monopoly. Your contrived
definition is NOT the definition of a cult, Lerner. Science claims a
monopoly of truth... is it a cult, too? Nice try, but your attempted
distortions of common words doesn't save you.
>>This sounds funny coming from someone who joined a church
>>that even you have labelled as New Age. The fact is, we don't have
>
> Waco
>
>>seiges or personality cults telling us to kill ourselves and our
>>children. That would be in your backyard.
>
>
> At least the CC didn't burn other Christians [ie the Old Believers] as
> they prayed in their Churches.
The CC didn't exist before a few decades ago. But if you want to see a
good lynching or cross burning, that'd certainly be right up your
co-religionist alley.
> Really, insulting CC does bother me. In fact, I would bet that I could
> list more objections to this group than you ever could.
Which shows that you don't have anything to defend. We've already
understood that your Christian belief is nominal at best.
>>>Would you also say the the Orthodox Church's historic opinion on
>>>Genesis is the same? If I can now dismiss the Church's historic
>>>interpretation of creation, then the Church has been wrong for 2000
>>>years!
>
>
>>Once more, you demonstrate you can't put two and two together.
>
> Perhaps
>
>>you can, but you'll choose to harangue instead. Read carefully,
>
> Stevie.
>
>> "The Church" has put forth no opinion on whether the events in
>
> Genesis
>
>>support a short creation period or an evolutionary period. What the
>>Church does say, and the Fathers unanimously, is that God's hand is
>>involved IF evolution is true.
>
>
> Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of your own Church.
You're stealing my lines again.
> So Orthodoxy must either admit that it has been wrong all along - which
> would put its entire doctrine in jeopardy, or Orthodoxy must continue
Wrong. There is no doctrine about the science of evolution or the
scientific accuracy of Genesis.
> to deny evolution in favor of its Tradition, which recognizes the
> creation account of Genesis. Bu this would force the Church to take a
The Church recognizes the spiritual truth of Genesis. It's makes no
scientific claims. You've been spanked on this already.
> position contrary to scientific evidence.
>
>
>>Now that you've opened your ignorance about the OC for our
>
> entertainment
>
>>today, how about telling us what your Calvary Chapel believes? Do
>
> they
>
>>believe the events in Genesis occurred over seven, twenty-four hour
>>days? Is that what you believe?
>
>
> They are creationist to the core. As for me, I find problems in both
> evolution and creationism.
How convenient. Now answer the question rather than evade and deflect.
You've got problems with both scientific theories, and yet you say the
OC has a dilemma in picking between only those two. You're being a
hypocrite, as expected.
> Dance around the issue, cast insults, do whatever.
You're stealing my lines again, O' Tu Quoqued One.
Joe Orthodox
> It's enough to know that "In the beginning God created the heavens and
> the earth..." - from a spiritual perspective, the "how" isn't all that
> imnportant.
>
> -Stephen
Exactly. That's the crux of Genesis, not whatever scientific method
that many Protestants try to extract.
Learner
Joe Orthodox wrote:
<a lot of nothing snipped>
> The Church recognizes the spiritual truth of Genesis. It's makes no
> scientific claims. You've been spanked on this already.
Really? So, does your Church believe that the earth was created before
the sun, whales were created before land mammals, and birds were
created before
reptiles?
> > They are creationist to the core. As for me, I find problems in
both
> > evolution and creationism.
> How convenient. Now answer the question rather than evade and
deflect.
> You've got problems with both scientific theories, and yet you say
the
> OC has a dilemma in picking between only those two. You're being a
> hypocrite, as expected.
No, I am being critical. But alas, those with weak minds and low self
esteen need an identity larger than themselves to cope with life.
Learner
Joe Orthodox
Learner wrote:
> No. I look at all belief systems with a critical eye, and I am not
> here to sell another brand of snake oil.
>
> This happens to be an Orthodox discussion group, so, unlike many of
> your brethren, I actually discuss the claims made by the Orthodox
> Church and examine how these claims measure up according to the
> historical evidence.
And you fail, given your historical ignorance.
Joe Orthodox
Learner wrote:
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
> <a lot of nothing snipped>
>
>>The Church recognizes the spiritual truth of Genesis. It's makes no
>>scientific claims. You've been spanked on this already.
>
>
> Really? So, does your Church believe that the earth was created before
> the sun, whales were created before land mammals, and birds were
> created before
> reptiles?
And you were already answered, O' Intellectually Challenged One. The
Church has no official position on the science, only that God created
everything and is driving evolution IF evolution is true. Now, got it?
Or are you going to continue pounding sand?
>>>They are creationist to the core. As for me, I find problems in
>
> both
>
>>>evolution and creationism.
>
>
>>How convenient. Now answer the question rather than evade and
>
> deflect.
>
>>You've got problems with both scientific theories, and yet you say
>
> the
>
>>OC has a dilemma in picking between only those two. You're being a
>>hypocrite, as expected.
>
>
> No, I am being critical. But alas, those with weak minds and low self
> esteen need an identity larger than themselves to cope with life.
> Learner
Yes, weak human minds need God. We're not perfect, and the first step
to salvation is admitting as much. Sounds like you're becoming more
atheist with every passing day.
Learner
Joe "blind cumulative causation" Orthodox wrote:
> Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>
> > It's enough to know that "In the beginning God created the heavens
and
> > the earth..." - from a spiritual perspective, the "how" isn't all
that
> > imnportant.
So, did Adam and Eve really exist, or are they allegorical? After all,
the Gospels trace Jesus' lineage to them and Christ even refers to them
in the Gospels. So, perhaps the facts are a bit more important than we
would like to admit.
> > -Stephen
>
> Exactly. That's the crux of Genesis, not whatever scientific method
> that many Protestants try to extract.
That is your modern spin on Genesis, it is not what the Church has
historically believed and taught. Like St. George and his little
dragon, the Orthodox Church must attempt to deny its own historical
beliefs and Tradition in order to avoid appearing foolish in the modern
world.
So you dance around the issue by bringing up which Church Father
believed the days of Genesis were figurative while you ignore the facts
that the creation sequence in Genesis is very different from what is in
the fossil record.
This lame "apology" for Orthodoxy creates far more problems than it
solves.
Since it is often claimed that the Orthodox Church "created" the Bible
and that the Church is the only credible interpreter of the Bible one
must ask a simple question.
What was the original intent of Genesis? Was it intended to be
understood literally or allegorically? It appears that the Orthodox
Church cannot make up its mind whether Genesis is literal [as the vast
majority of Orthodox have historically understood it] or allegorical,
or a mixture of literal and allegory. Simply put, the Orthodox Church
has no idea what is happening in Genesis or how to reconcile the
Genesis account with the
facts of science.
The only way that Genesis can be reconciled with modern Orthodox
teaching is to interpret the book allegorically. However, this is not
necessarily the original intent of Genesis -it simply becomes necessary
when a literal reading of the text is absurd in the light of modern
science.
So Joey, your Church's shakey edifice of Tradition is set on a
foundation of nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
I am sure that you have nothing intelligent to add to this, but will
try anyway.
Learner
Learner
Joe Orthodox wrote:
> > Really? So, does your Church believe that the earth was created
before
> > the sun, whales were created before land mammals, and birds were
> > created before
> > reptiles?
> And you were already answered, O' Intellectually Challenged One.
No I was not. Is the Genesis account the truth? If it is not, then
what does this say about the claim that the Bible is the Word of God?
> The Church has no official position on the science, only that God
created
> everything and is driving evolution IF evolution is true.
So Genesis is the literal truth [as the Church has believed for most of
its history] or is it allegorical [because is does not match the facts
known today]?
Were Adam and Eve real people, or were they allegories as well?
> Now, got it? Or are you going to continue pounding sand?
I understand the issue very well. Genesis is either literal or it is
allegorical. If your Church "created" the Bible and can best interpret
it, then why can't it tell us, once and for all, which parts of the
Bible are literal and which parts are allegory?
> > No, I am being critical. But alas, those with weak minds and low
self
> > esteen need an identity larger than themselves to cope with life.
> > Learner
> Yes, weak human minds need God. We're not perfect, and the first
step
> to salvation is admitting as much. Sounds like you're becoming more
> atheist with every passing day.
You would be the best advertisment for atheism.
Learner
AGGreen
***Describes you to a TEE!
AGGreen
***Another dumb, pointless statement from the heretic.
AGGreen
member of the Cavalry Chapel cult?
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104337113....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
AGGreen
"Stephen M. Adams" <ada...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:cquln...@news1.newsguy.com...
> "Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >aggreen wrote:
> >
> >> ***So, Learner...Orthodoxy is now a cult?
> >
> >The Orthodox Church has some of the key features of a cult. It
> >believes that it holds the sole monopoly on all truth, for example.
> >But so do the Moonies, JWs and the Mormons.
>
> And so do many Protestant churches. Most certainly the church I
> attended before finding the Orthodox Church felt (and continues
> to feel) that they are the sole competant interpreters of Scripture
> and ALL other churches are wrong.
>
> >> ***So, Leanrer...you are now a slime bucket heretic!
> >
> >Cults also teach their members that people who have other opinions are
> >evil and, in some cases, sub-human.
>
> This is NOT the teaching of the Orthodox Church. It may be Al's personal
> opinion, but the Church teaches no such thing.
***Stephen, Stevie Learner left Orthodoxy for a Jezabel, and by embracing a
fundamental protestant cult repudiated Holy Orthodoxy. this makes him a
heretic. This ain't my opinion, but the Church's. However, since Stevie the
Heretic believes that Orthodoxy is a cult, it is my opinion and my opinion
alone that he is a heretical slime bucket.
Al
Alexander Arnakis
>
>What about simple criticism of methods and theories used by those who
>push Darwinian evolution? In other words, not pushing any specific
>alternative, but seeking to critique the current theories and show
>that they are in error in at least some ways?
>
this kind of epistemological critique? First, they have to master the
basics of how evolution is supposed to work -- and mixed messages
aren't helpful here. The critiques can come at the college level.
>
>Probably true in the majority of cases. It is equally true that those
>who hold to pure Darwinian evolution will not brook ANY kind of criticism
>that comes from outside the "fraternity" and will almost invariable try
>to write off the critic as a religious nutcase.
>
don't think that most scientists would go so far as to rule out any
sort of divine causation behind the evolutionary mechanisms. The whole
point is that religion and science operate in independent spheres.
I'll admit that there's a sort of "received wisdom" in many academic
areas, not just in biology. Students at least have to be familiar with
this "received wisdom," even though they may ultimately disagree with
it. That's the "price of admission" -- without it, you don't get to
play.
Alexander Arnakis
>***Why should ANY Orthodox Christian care about the opinion of a heretic and
>member of the Cavalry Chapel cult?
>
"Cavalry"? Is this some sort of religious practice of the Buffalo
Soldiers out on the Great Plains in the latter part of the 19th
century?
AGGreen
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@address.none> wrote in message
news:ffo6t0hgkeq68kd9o...@4ax.com...
***Isn't this called a Spoonerism?
Stephen M. Adams
Yes, Al, I know - I was referring to the "slime bucket" part, since
he is clearly a heretic, having known the truth and left it.
Stephen M. Adams
>On 29 Dec 2004 15:30:55 GMT, Stephen M. Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>What about simple criticism of methods and theories used by those who
>>push Darwinian evolution? In other words, not pushing any specific
>>alternative, but seeking to critique the current theories and show
>>that they are in error in at least some ways?
>>
>That sounds good in theory, but are high school students ready for
>this kind of epistemological critique? First, they have to master the
>basics of how evolution is supposed to work -- and mixed messages
>aren't helpful here. The critiques can come at the college level.
I think this is problematic, since a good portion of the public never
goes to college, or if they do, don't study biology.
When it comes right down to it, if discussing the issues surrounding
evolution and clearly stating the facts about the frauds perpetrated
by certain elements in the "scientific" community (whether intentional
or not) causes a problem for the theory, then the theory isn't all
that strong!
The facts and critiques of the methods used should absolutely be taught
in high school. And I'm not talking about any creationist stuff here,
but a critical analysis of the information available.
Just how long will it take to remove the whole "embryo" fraud from
the minds of the public? A century or so - after all those who
were taught it die off? I would wager that most people who saw
those drawings never found out the truth about them.
>>Probably true in the majority of cases. It is equally true that those
>>who hold to pure Darwinian evolution will not brook ANY kind of criticism
>>that comes from outside the "fraternity" and will almost invariable try
>>to write off the critic as a religious nutcase.
>>
>By "pure Darwinian evolution," do you mean the atheistic version? I
>don't think that most scientists would go so far as to rule out any
>sort of divine causation behind the evolutionary mechanisms. The whole
>point is that religion and science operate in independent spheres.
It depends on who you are talking about - I know quite a few people
in education (at all levels) who believe that evolution *proves* that
God doesn't exist or if he does, had nothing to do with how life evolved.
>I'll admit that there's a sort of "received wisdom" in many academic
>areas, not just in biology. Students at least have to be familiar with
>this "received wisdom," even though they may ultimately disagree with
>it. That's the "price of admission" -- without it, you don't get to
>play.
The problem with this is that "received wisdom" amounts to brainwashing
and most students simply perpetuate the false teachings they have
received. I spent 4 years in a history program and I spent a LOT of
time debating "received wisdom" and usually ended up showing that it
was pure bunk, much to the dismay of several of my professors. On the
plus side, I had one who was extremely skeptical of "received wisdom"
and I learned from him how to do solid research and how to recognize
the traps one falls into because of biases.
Learner
their "truth".
Learner
Joe Orthodox
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>>>Really? So, does your Church believe that the earth was created
>
> before
>
>>>the sun, whales were created before land mammals, and birds were
>>>created before
>>>reptiles?
>
>
>>And you were already answered, O' Intellectually Challenged One.
>
>
> No I was not.
Yes, you were, while you in turn refused to divulge your personal
hermeneutic towards Genesis, whether the book is allegorical,
scientific, mythical, historical, etc. You really need to understand
how to read ancient documents and discern the audience intended. This
is basic Biblical hermeneutics. In the NT, Christ said he was a Door -
do you really believe he was a block of wood in your literalist mindset;
or do you suddenly reject the truth of this passage because it's
impossible for a man to literally be a door? Think harder, Lerner.
>>The Church has no official position on the science, only that God
>
> created
>
>>everything and is driving evolution IF evolution is true.
>
>
> So Genesis is the literal truth [as the Church has believed for most of
> its history] or is it allegorical [because is does not match the facts
> known today]?
>
> Were Adam and Eve real people, or were they allegories as well?
Read above.
>>Now, got it? Or are you going to continue pounding sand?
>
>
> I understand the issue very well. Genesis is either literal or it is
> allegorical. If your Church "created" the Bible and can best interpret
The Church didn't create the book of Genesis. Any straw left in that
dummy of yours?
Joe Orthodox
Learner wrote:
Stevie, your facts are wrong, you clearly don't know what the OC
teaches, and then you repeatedly dodged answering the question about
your interpretation of Genesis and how you reconcile it with science.
You've been explained the Church's position already. You don't like it
because you can't harangue against it and therefore you set up strawmen
to beat. That's your problem, really. Take your 'F' home and get your
spankin' from Mama.
Learner
it? Or, does the Orthodox Church believe that God named some hominid,
which evolved over millions of year, Adam?
Answer the question and stop throwing out stawman arguments! Does you
Church believe that God created Adam and Eve as human, as the Bible
says, or did they evolve from lower life forms that may, or may not,
have been created earlier?
I know that you have no answers, so you will go with your standard
immature tactics.
Learner
Stephen M. Adams
>So, does the Orthodox Church teach that God created Adam and Eve? Does
>it? Or, does the Orthodox Church believe that God named some hominid,
>which evolved over millions of year, Adam?
Operationally, for purposes of worship and liturgics, it assumes (and
teaches) that Adam and Eve existed and were directly created by God.
Some individuals and some Church Fathers may assume, or directly state,
that Adam and Eve actually existed and that they were directly created
by God.
But since this has not, to my knowledge, been an issue of dogma, all
Orthodox believers may properly come to their own opinions, so long
as they do not interfere with the spiritual or liturgical life of the
church.
Orthodoxy simply doesn't make dogmatic statements about just anything.
Many, many things are left to the conscience of the believer.
So, if I don't believe that Adam and Eve existed and were directly
created by God, that is my business. If I insist we get rid of all
the language in the liturgy and our prayres that acts (operationally)
as if they did exist, then the church will rightly correct me.
>Answer the question and stop throwing out stawman arguments! Does you
>Church believe that God created Adam and Eve as human, as the Bible
>says, or did they evolve from lower life forms that may, or may not,
>have been created earlier?
Dogmatically? It says nothing. Operationally, in liturgy, prayer and
worship, it assumes that they did. But as a matter of dogma? It has
no official opinion.
>immature tactics.
So you say. But try understanding what Orthodoxy REALLY teaches and what
it means for the church to leave many issues to the conscience of the
believer.
AGGreen
no knowledge of what Orthodoxy actually teaches and why.
"Stephen M. Adams" <ada...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:cr1oh...@news3.newsguy.com...
AGGreen
> That's funny. The Mormons say the same thing about those who leave
> their "truth".
>
> Learner
>
***And since the Mormons are not Christian...
***What about the Amish?
Alexander Arnakis
>When it comes right down to it, if discussing the issues surrounding
>evolution and clearly stating the facts about the frauds perpetrated
>by certain elements in the "scientific" community (whether intentional
>or not) causes a problem for the theory, then the theory isn't all
>that strong!
>
>The facts and critiques of the methods used should absolutely be taught
>in high school. And I'm not talking about any creationist stuff here,
>but a critical analysis of the information available.
>
I find it odd that the anti-evolution Fundamentalists now want to
foster a "skeptical" approach to the theory of evolution. (They
overlook the fact that science, by its nature, is always skeptical.)
If these Fundamentalists are such great skeptics, why aren't they
skeptical about their own literal interpretation of Genesis?
It's clear that the theory of evolution, whatever its flaws, is far
more reasonable than the seven-day account of creation in the Bible.
Teaching Genesis as science can only result in short-changing the
students.
>Just how long will it take to remove the whole "embryo" fraud from
>the minds of the public? A century or so - after all those who
>were taught it die off? I would wager that most people who saw
>those drawings never found out the truth about them.
>
Refresh my memory. Is this the idea that "ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny"? Maybe the anti-evolutionists are setting up a straw man
here. See
http://dannyreviews.com/h/Ontogeny_and_Phylogeny.html
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> You miss the point - once again - but what else is new? There were
> alternative explanations for creation such as sponatneous generation
> [and I doubt that you have a clue as to what this is]. Eusebius of
> Caesarea rejected this idea because it was incompatible with the
> Biblical account of the creation, and accepted Genesis.
Do you have a reference for this opinion of Eusebius?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
AGGreen
<roger_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1104496091.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
***Don't hold your breath for this heretic, Roger.
Learner
Learner
Joe 'Darwin' Orthodox wrote:
> >>And you were already answered, O' Intellectually Challenged One.
> > No I was not.
> Yes, you were,
No, I was not.
> while you in turn refused to divulge your personal
> hermeneutic towards Genesis, whether the book is allegorical,
> scientific, mythical, historical, etc. You really need to understand
> how to read ancient documents and discern the audience intended.
This
> is basic Biblical hermeneutics. In the NT, Christ said he was a Door
-
> do you really believe he was a block of wood in your literalist
mindset;
> or do you suddenly reject the truth of this passage because it's
> impossible for a man to literally be a door? Think harder, Lerner.
And,
> > So Genesis is the literal truth [as the Church has believed for
most of
> > its history] or is it allegorical [because is does not match the
facts
> > known today]?
> > Were Adam and Eve real people, or were they allegories as well?
> Read above.
Well, where do I begin? Why not start with Church "Tradition".
Beyond the creation account of Genesis, Luke [3:23-38] tells us the
genealogy of Jesus from Joseph back to "Adam the son of God."
Also, the Great Synaxaristes lists "The Sunday before the Nativity
which is also known as the Sunday of the Holy Fathers", during December
18-24 which lists the ancestors of Jesus beginning with "Adam and Eve
the First-created."
Since your Church lists and celebrates the genealogy of Jesus with Adam
as an ancestor, Adam must have been a real person. Afterall,
allegories do not produce children.
Since icons are also a part of Orthodox Tradtion, the Easter icon shows
Jesus destroying the gates of hell and freeing Adam and Eve from the
"captivity of death".
So, in order to deny that Adam was a real man created by God, you would
have to deny your own Church's Tradition!
I can't wait to see how you try to dig yourself out of this dilemma, if
you even understand it!
> The Church didn't create the book of Genesis. Any straw left in that
> dummy of yours?
It didn't create any book of the Bible.
Learner
Joe Orthodox
Lerner wrote:
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>>> Really? So, does your Church believe that the earth was created
>
>
> before
>
>>> the sun, whales were created before land mammals, and birds were
>>> created before
>>> reptiles?
>
>
>
>> And you were already answered, O' Intellectually Challenged One.
>
>
>
> No I was not.
Yes, you were, while you in turn refused to divulge your personal
hermeneutic towards Genesis, whether the book is allegorical,
scientific, mythical, historical, etc. You really need to understand
how to read ancient documents and discern the audience intended. This
is basic Biblical hermeneutics. In the NT, Christ said he was a Door -
do you really believe he was a block of wood in your literalist mindset;
or do you suddenly reject the truth of this passage because it's
impossible for a man to literally be a door? Think harder, Lerner.
>> The Church has no official position on the science, only that God
>
>
> created
>
>> everything and is driving evolution IF evolution is true.
>
>
>
> So Genesis is the literal truth [as the Church has believed for most of
> its history] or is it allegorical [because is does not match the facts
> known today]?
>
> Were Adam and Eve real people, or were they allegories as well?
Read above.
>> Now, got it? Or are you going to continue pounding sand?
>
>
>
> I understand the issue very well. Genesis is either literal or it is
> allegorical. If your Church "created" the Bible and can best interpret
The Church didn't create the book of Genesis. Any straw left in that
dummy of yours?
Learner
Why not start with Church "Tradition".
Beyond the creation account of Genesis, Luke [3:23-38] tells us the
genealogy of Jesus from Joseph back to "Adam the son of God."
Also, the Great Synaxaristes lists "The Sunday before the Nativity
which is also known as the Sunday of the Holy Fathers", during December
18-24 which lists the ancestors of Jesus beginning with "Adam and Eve
the First-created."
Since your Church lists and celebrates the genealogy of Jesus with Adam
as an ancestor, Adam must have been a real person. Afterall, allegories
do not produce children.
Since icons are also a part of Orthodox Tradtion, the Easter icon shows
Jesus destroying the gates of hell and freeing Adam and Eve from the
"captivity of death".
So, in order to deny that Adam was a real man created by God, you would
have to deny your own Church's Tradition!
So, continue to avoid the issue Joey. You only prove your ignorance.
Learner
Learner
Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance concerning your own faith.
Learner
AGGreen
>
> So, continue to avoid the issue Joey. You only prove your ignorance.
> Learner
***And you only continue to show that you are a hate-mongerer.
AGGreen
> Evasion is your game, not mine.
>
> Once again, you demonstrate your ignorance concerning your own faith.
> Learner
***And you, the hate-mongering heretic, ARE an expert in Holy Orthodoxy?
Learner
Orthodoxy to know that it is wrong on many [but not all] issues. I
thank God that I had the common sense to leave.
Learner
Stephen M. Adams
>On 30 Dec 2004 16:07:28 GMT, Stephen M. Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>When it comes right down to it, if discussing the issues surrounding
>>evolution and clearly stating the facts about the frauds perpetrated
>>by certain elements in the "scientific" community (whether intentional
>>or not) causes a problem for the theory, then the theory isn't all
>>that strong!
>>
>>The facts and critiques of the methods used should absolutely be taught
>>in high school. And I'm not talking about any creationist stuff here,
>>but a critical analysis of the information available.
>>
>I find it odd that the anti-evolution Fundamentalists now want to
>foster a "skeptical" approach to the theory of evolution. (They
>overlook the fact that science, by its nature, is always skeptical.)
I am not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination (I'm even
a member of a new calendar parish!), but I still have healthy skepticism
for quite a bit of what it put forth as "scientific fact" these days.
As for science being naturally skeptical - that is true, to a point.
On some issues (and this is certainly one) you will not see ANY kind
of criticism in public. Why is that? And why are some elements of
the "evolution" camp so vehemently opposed to ANYTHING that even looks
like criticism of evolutionary theories, no matter what the source?
There are fanatics on both sides - and they are both wrong.
>If these Fundamentalists are such great skeptics, why aren't they
>skeptical about their own literal interpretation of Genesis?
I would say the answer is faith - one they believe is God inspired,
the other, a flawed theory of man. At least that's what I've found
in my experience.
>It's clear that the theory of evolution, whatever its flaws, is far
>more reasonable than the seven-day account of creation in the Bible.
>Teaching Genesis as science can only result in short-changing the
>students.
I'm not proposing that, and I object to it. My position on Genesis
was posted here earlier - that the church has no dogmatic teaching
on the literalness of the creation account, and that it is perfectly
within normal Orthodox thinking to take the accounts in Genesis as
metaphor (I confirmed this with my priest after I posted it).
>>Just how long will it take to remove the whole "embryo" fraud from
>>the minds of the public? A century or so - after all those who
>>were taught it die off? I would wager that most people who saw
>>those drawings never found out the truth about them.
>>
>Refresh my memory. Is this the idea that "ontogeny recapitulates
>phylogeny"? Maybe the anti-evolutionists are setting up a straw man
>here. See
>http://dannyreviews.com/h/Ontogeny_and_Phylogeny.html
I'm talking about Haeckel and his embryo drawings - they are
clear frauds...
Stephen M. Adams
>Eusebius, Preparation, 7.17 (Gifford, Part 1, 358).
Fine. But this is not dogmatic. Can you produce a statement from
an Eccumenical Council that rejects anyting other than a literal
reading of the creation accounts?
Stephen M. Adams
>Why not start with Church "Tradition".
>
>Beyond the creation account of Genesis, Luke [3:23-38] tells us the
>genealogy of Jesus from Joseph back to "Adam the son of God."
>
>Also, the Great Synaxaristes lists "The Sunday before the Nativity
>which is also known as the Sunday of the Holy Fathers", during December
>18-24 which lists the ancestors of Jesus beginning with "Adam and Eve
>the First-created."
>
>Since your Church lists and celebrates the genealogy of Jesus with Adam
>as an ancestor, Adam must have been a real person. Afterall, allegories
>do not produce children.
This is only a problem for extreme Biblical literalists - which you
appear to have become. Or are you just doing this to try to win
debating points??
There is nothing in any of the stuff you wrote that is problematic,
unless you impose a strict literalism on the texts. But this is NOT
Orthodox!
>Since icons are also a part of Orthodox Tradtion, the Easter icon shows
>Jesus destroying the gates of hell and freeing Adam and Eve from the
>"captivity of death".
Nothing says that this is literal and not spiritual. Once again, you
apply a western, protestant literalism to something that it should not
be applied to.
Where did you learn your "orthodox" theology??
>So, in order to deny that Adam was a real man created by God, you would
>have to deny your own Church's Tradition!
Nope. Not even close.
Learner
Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> "Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >Why not start with Church "Tradition".
> >
> >Beyond the creation account of Genesis, Luke [3:23-38] tells us the
> >genealogy of Jesus from Joseph back to "Adam the son of God."
> >
> >Also, the Great Synaxaristes lists "The Sunday before the Nativity
> >which is also known as the Sunday of the Holy Fathers", during
December
> >18-24 which lists the ancestors of Jesus beginning with "Adam and
Eve
> >the First-created."
> >
> >Since your Church lists and celebrates the genealogy of Jesus with
Adam
> >as an ancestor, Adam must have been a real person. Afterall,
allegories
> >do not produce children.
> This is only a problem for extreme Biblical literalists - which you
> appear to have become. Or are you just doing this to try to win
> debating points??
No, it is a problem for the Orthodox Church which has, for most of its
history, believed that God created a man named Adam from the clay, and
that Jesus descends from Adam.
The Orthodox Church is in an odd position with Darwinian evolution. On
the one hand, the traditional teachings of the church says nothing
about evolution, but teaches that God created Adam. The Orthodox cannot
defend evolution from Tradition.
But, on the other hand, the evidence for evolution forces Orthodoxy to
accept it as fact.
So, here is the dilemma. If evolution is correct, then Tradition
is wrong. And, as I have said all along, if one part of Tradition is
wrong, any part could be wrong. Orthodoxy itself is becomes fallible.
Orthodoxy must either admit that it has been wrong, or it must continue
to deny evolution - taking a position contrary to the evidence.
What I see here is an attempt to defend the veracity of Tradition by
attempting to muddy the waters instead of looking at what the Church
has historically taught.
> There is nothing in any of the stuff you wrote that is problematic,
> unless you impose a strict literalism on the texts. But this is NOT
> Orthodox!
So is it "Orthodox" to assume that Adam was nothing more than an
allegory? Can an allegory father children?
> >Since icons are also a part of Orthodox Tradtion, the Easter icon
shows
> >Jesus destroying the gates of hell and freeing Adam and Eve from the
> >"captivity of death".
>
> Nothing says that this is literal and not spiritual. Once again, you
> apply a western, protestant literalism to something that it should
not
> be applied to.
>
> Where did you learn your "orthodox" theology??
Once again, how can Adam produce children and how could Adam be an
ancestor of Jesus, as the Great Synaxaristes teaches, if he is merely a
spiritual allegory.
Really, I find it funny that the Orthodox are averse to anything that
is modern, but bends over backwards to accomodate evolution!
By the way, Orthodox icons were traditionally dated from the creation
of the world - September 1, 5508 B.C.!
> >So, in order to deny that Adam was a real man created by God, you
would
> >have to deny your own Church's Tradition!
>
> Nope. Not even close.
Like it or not, denying the Genesis account of the creation of Adam
would cut the Church off from its own historical tradition.
Learner
Stephen M. Adams
I've yet to see a criticism from you that accurately reflected
Orthodox dogma - you like to setup straw men and knock them down,
but against the real teachings of the church, you fail....
Again, who taught you Orthodox theology?
Stephen M. Adams
>Stephen M. Adams wrote:
>> "Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>Since your Church lists and celebrates the genealogy of Jesus with Adam
>>>as an ancestor, Adam must have been a real person. Afterall, allegories
>>>do not produce children.
>
>>This is only a problem for extreme Biblical literalists - which you
>>appear to have become. Or are you just doing this to try to win
>>debating points??
>
>No, it is a problem for the Orthodox Church which has, for most of its
>history, believed that God created a man named Adam from the clay, and
>that Jesus descends from Adam.
One more time - individual Orthodox beleived this (and I am sure,
beileved that the sun went around the earth), and many of the
great Saints of the Church believed this. BUT, it is not dogmatic!
There is a difference. On issues of dogma, there is no permission to
dissent or hold other beliefs. On issues of "theologuemena" the
church has no problem with discussion or disagreement.
So, unless you can provide a declaration from a council (which would
make the belief dogmatic), it is one of pious belief, left to the
conscience of the believer.
This is true even if the liturgical uses assume (operationally) that
Adam and Eve literally existed in a garden called Eden located in what
is now Iraq. But again, this is NOT dogmatic teaching.
>The Orthodox Church is in an odd position with Darwinian evolution. On
>the one hand, the traditional teachings of the church says nothing
>about evolution, but teaches that God created Adam. The Orthodox cannot
>defend evolution from Tradition.
I think Genesis ch 1 & 2 are allegory. Absolutely everything that
the church says about Adam & Eve can be understood in the matter.
The number of Orthodox who hold to a literal position has surely
declined over the years. So the mind of the Church is, according
to the "total witness" is that it is allegorical. This doesn't make
the earlier Orthodox heretics nor does it make me a heretic.
>But, on the other hand, the evidence for evolution forces Orthodoxy to
>accept it as fact.
So what? Nothing in Orthodox teaching requires one to accept or reject
evolution - we are free to examine it and accept or reject it. For me,
personally, there are some valuable things to be found in the evidence
for evolution, but there is also bad science. I'm not a creationist,
nor do I beleive in a young earth. But I can see flaws in scientific
method and errors in thinking.
>So, here is the dilemma. If evolution is correct, then Tradition
>is wrong. And, as I have said all along, if one part of Tradition is
>wrong, any part could be wrong. Orthodoxy itself is becomes fallible.
What's your definition of Tradition? Let's start with that and see.
I suspect your idea of tradition is in error.
>Orthodoxy must either admit that it has been wrong, or it must continue
>to deny evolution - taking a position contrary to the evidence.
Straw man that assumes facts not in evidence. What is tradition?
>What I see here is an attempt to defend the veracity of Tradition by
>attempting to muddy the waters instead of looking at what the Church
>has historically taught.
Not by me. And it depends on what you mean by "the Church has taught"
as well.
>> There is nothing in any of the stuff you wrote that is problematic,
>> unless you impose a strict literalism on the texts. But this is NOT
>> Orthodox!
>
>So is it "Orthodox" to assume that Adam was nothing more than an
>allegory? Can an allegory father children?
Did George Washington copulate to create the United States?
And for a Biblical reference - was Abraham the literal Father of
the Pharisees who told Jesus that Abraham was their father??
Hmm??
>> >Since icons are also a part of Orthodox Tradtion, the Easter icon
>shows
>> >Jesus destroying the gates of hell and freeing Adam and Eve from the
>> >"captivity of death".
>>
>> Nothing says that this is literal and not spiritual. Once again, you
>> apply a western, protestant literalism to something that it should
>not
>> be applied to.
>>
>> Where did you learn your "orthodox" theology??
>
>Once again, how can Adam produce children and how could Adam be an
>ancestor of Jesus, as the Great Synaxaristes teaches, if he is merely a
>spiritual allegory.
How can George Washington be the "father of his country" when he clearly
did not give birth the the nation, NOR to all of the people in it??
See above about Abraham as well.
>Really, I find it funny that the Orthodox are averse to anything that
>is modern, but bends over backwards to accomodate evolution!
Who says this? I don't see Orthodox rejecting TV, computers,
liberal democracy, space travel, surgery, anti-biotics, etc, etc.
One more time - who taught you Orthodox theology??
>By the way, Orthodox icons were traditionally dated from the creation
>of the world - September 1, 5508 B.C.!
Citation?
>> >So, in order to deny that Adam was a real man created by God, you
>would
>> >have to deny your own Church's Tradition!
>>
>> Nope. Not even close.
>
>Like it or not, denying the Genesis account of the creation of Adam
>would cut the Church off from its own historical tradition.
Only in your twisted interpretation.
Joe Orthodox
> I did, O Ortho-liar.
No you didn't. Try again, Troll Dodger.
Next time, answer the question rather than evade...
Lerner evaded:
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
>>> Really? So, does your Church believe that the earth was created
>
>
> before
>
>>> the sun, whales were created before land mammals, and birds were
>>> created before
>>> reptiles?
>
>> And you were already answered, O' Intellectually Challenged One.
>
> No I was not.
Yes, you were, while you in turn refused to divulge your personal
hermeneutic towards Genesis, whether the book is allegorical,
scientific, mythical, historical, etc. You really need to understand
how to read ancient documents and discern the audience intended. This
is basic Biblical hermeneutics. In the NT, Christ said he was a Door -
do you really believe he was a block of wood in your literalist mindset;
or do you suddenly reject the truth of this passage because it's
impossible for a man to literally be a door? Think harder, Lerner.
Now answer the question.
Joe Orthodox
> Joe Orthodox wrote:
>
> The usual nonsense which does not answer the issue at hand.
>
>
>>>were alternative explanations for the existence of life, such as
>>>spontaneous generation, which the Church Fathers rejected in favor
>
> of
>
>>>Genesis.
>
>
>>You can reject spontaneous generation, and yet reject a literalist
>>interpretation of Genesis. Showing the former doesn't prove one
>
> accepts
>
>>a literal reading.
>
>
> You miss the point - once again - but what else is new? There were
> alternative explanations for creation such as sponatneous generation
> [and I doubt that you have a clue as to what this is]. Eusebius of
Perhaps if you'd spell it correctly, it might help me out ;-p
> Caesarea rejected this idea because it was incompatible with the
> Biblical account of the creation, and accepted Genesis.
Spontaneous generation and evolution are not the same theories, Lerner,
though once again you're trying another favorite troll tactic of
shifting the discussion to cover up your earlier mistated facts.
Now try answering the question... Do you literally accept the Book of
Genesis, meaning the world as we know it was created in seven, normal 24
hour days? Concentrate, Lerner. Try not to evade. I'm wondering if
you also believe Jonah was really swallowed by a real whale? And was
Christ a door? Or was he a vine hanging in the vineyard? Your problem
is that you're having a tough time understanding the various layers of
ancient writing, and instead must come away thinking these books are
literal scientific transcripts when in fact there are literary and
metaphorical layers interwoven into the history. This is what happens
when you cut yourself from the hermeneutic of tradition and are left to
your own whimsical devices.
The truth is, the Orthodox Church has a working,unified hermeneutic and
theology. Your hermeneutic doesn't work as evidenced by 30,000+
denominations with conflicting dogmas and theologies.
AGGreen
***So, you think Christ (The church) is wrong. So what?
AGGreen
Hell!
"Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104872792.7...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
AGGreen
"Stephen M. Adams" <ada...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:crf7k...@news3.newsguy.com...
> "Learner" <nat...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >I never claimed to be an expert. However, I know enough about
> >Orthodoxy to know that it is wrong on many [but not all] issues. I
> >thank God that I had the common sense to leave.
>
> I've yet to see a criticism from you that accurately reflected
> Orthodox dogma - you like to setup straw men and knock them down,
> but against the real teachings of the church, you fail....
>
> Again, who taught you Orthodox theology?
***Jezebel
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/jezebel.htm