Minasoliman, this is a strange thread indeed. With all due respect you either know nothing about evolution and are just buying time by researching regurgitated info on the internet or are keeping people in the dark who are genuinely asking questions. Your answers, as articulate as they may be, aren't giving much info at all. If we are going to accept a new kind of Christian anthropology we ought to have solid faith in it as the actual workings of God in His creation. I am neither for nor against evolution (certain kinds anyway) but I am forced to humble myself enough to say this is still not 100% proven to be fact and much meditation, prayer and research has to be done.
I'm curious as to why my post above hasn't been answered. What kind of evolution are you positing? . Single cell? humanoid? I'm genuinely curious, because there are different schools of thought. I am ignorant in this subject compared to most.
Also, much of your post above is quite irrelevant. I'm sure no one here believed that nature is uncreated. Or that God left the universe to continue on its own. I understand you're demonstrating the streams of thought that exist in society but that is irrelevant in this thread where most people are presumably Christian and don't need to read about them.
Also, at what point where we stamped with His image during the course of evolution. Since that would be impossible to answer, my follow up question is, was that change over night, was it a molecular change, a conscious change? Was the soul suddenly aware of the self? How can Christian anthropology suddenly accept something this crucial before being tested and observed or at the very least confirmed by myriad more fossils and relics left for us?
My questions are merely to put this concept to the test, a rigorous one so that we don't become a stumbling block to the church of the future when perhaps something else is discovered that may change our understanding once again.
"With all due respect you either know nothing about evolution and are just buying time by researching regurgitated info on the internet or are keeping people in the dark who are genuinely asking questions. "
Actually, I have a life. That is why I am not getting into a scientific discussion; otherwise I'll spend hours on the computer. I actually do know a lot about evolution. You can search my posting history here and orthodoxchristianity.net. So, if you like to make assumptions about why I am answering the spirituality issue for Zoxsasi, rather than the physical questions you keep asking that actually make no difference at all in the faith, some of which have no answer really, then go right ahead. The fact that you concentrate on little details that make no difference on Orthodoxy is a waste of my time. If you are truly and deeply struggling with this, you can PM me.
We can throw around the word "Christian anthropology" as if I know what you're talking about, but until then, it seems you are just adopting Protestant concerns more than Orthodox ones in my experience. Unless you become very specific as to how I am contradicting "Christian anthropology", your post is also irrelevant to the discussion Zoxsasi has. The last post Zoxsasi wrote was very specific to what I am looking for, in the theological realm of things. So ask something along those lines. Once you understand the theological ideas behind "spiritual anthropology", then you might realize you do not really need an answer to the questions you ask.
"Christian anthropology" is rather a simple concept. My apologies if that threw you off. Again, as I stated before, I do not believe nor disbelieve, but in need of concrete proof to base my decision which will in turn be subject to what the church decrees. I never assumed you were contradicting Orthodoxy but truth has to have a value and can't be reached haphazardly. I'm merely questioning to reach a conclusion.
But aside from that, there's nothing irrelevant about the image of man in relation to God. Isn't this a central question? Accusing me of "protestant concerns" may also be a scapegoat.
I don't want to see you become adversarial which I'd like to reset by restating my position. I neither accept or reject evolution as an explanation of the world. I'm just questioning. You've said I don't understand "spiritual anthropology" but I think asking the simple question of God's image in man is valid, at least to me. What is the basis of spiritual anthropology to you?
Any theory or belief must be put to the test through rigorous examination. If fear will drive us to refrain from answering (not saying that you were) then we're crutched on something other than sound science; perhaps a hidden motivation or skewed world view.
You stated in the other thread evolution is how we got here, and now it's up to us to ascend to God. (or something along those lines) Well that makes sense to a minimalist but a deep theology of being and existence takes an issue with some of that assertion. What is God's image to you and when was it inherited by man? When God breathed in man, at what point in our process did it take place? If this question is ignorant to you, I can't change your perception, but at the very least I'm owed an answer. It is important to me. Again, i've said before I don't know as much as most people when it comes to this topic but there are valid questions that we should attempt to answer.
My assertion is this, we can't be scared to ask the hard questions. Even if we reach an impasse or a mystery then so be it, but at least we tried and failed. We don't know the mystery of the trinity, Christology, Grace, etc, but Orthodoxy has laid to rest this scholastic vs the mystical and appropriates boundaries within to freely allow us to examine and meditate. If evolution is strictly an explanation of the world then we have to assume that science doesn't fully explain the spiritual. It can't. If you don't want to answer me since I'm below your level of knowledge, i accept that but i want everyone to see that this isn't a science vs mystical.. If the science is true then it's true. God is the creator and benefactor of all, but we need to understand that science can't be out of mere inference especially when it deals with an essential question of existence.
That's fine to ask hard questions. It's not about hard questions, it's about whether the questions make a difference in theology to begin with.
So let me get this straight. Your basic question pretty much boils down to is "what is the image of God" in us and how does that square with evolution? As in what is the "rational soul" made of? Or are you asking more specifics like "when did this happen" or "how"? Because these latter two questions is what I had a problem with.
And what do you mean be being "minimalist"? I think you are misconstruing my position here. I did not say it is up to us to ascend to God. I said it is up to us to choose Him. But of course, it also requires a working of grace as well, God's own hand in man's salvation. The fact that you think I take some sort of Pelagian approach just because of evolution seems to further my problems with your questions to begin with. But I am willing to accept the fact that I am misunderstanding your questions here. I am not trying to be adversarial. I am just being straight forward and simple in my approach here.
I'm struggling a bit with this issue for sometime, and Mina, being a scientist, is in a good position to help me.
Can we focus on this issue first and then your questions later?
I'm not sure if you are aware, but Mina doesn't even have the time to respond, nor be an admin on this site, so I appreciate every second he has.
Let's just focus on the last post he sent me and when I'm more learned about our salvation & evolution then let's move on, otherwise, I'll keep asking the same questions on this forum and the admins will just get upset with me.
Thanks
@Mina, thanks for your latest response. You are my brother. I love you man, but I'm a bit confused:
Here's what you said:
" ...But, he disobeyed God, and "surely died", not merely physical, but also spiritual. It's both."
How can the consequence of sin be both Spiritual and Physical? I thought the same as you, and you corrected me before and told me that death was only spiritual?
If we evolved from Apes, then, like other animals, we were destined to die.
Are you saying that we evolved from Apes, and then at one point in time, God breathed His Spirit in us, and the effect was that we live eternally - both physically & spiritually??
Didn't know Mina was a scientist. I oppose evolution because it takes a material worldly view and I think intelligent design is just a compromise which came from some protestant.
Have you read St. Athanasius "On the Incarnation"?
If you haven't, I would like to go through the theology behind this important piece of work with you. This can probably help answer your question in depth.
Have you read St. Athanasius "On the Incarnation"?
If you haven't, I would like to go through the theology behind this important piece of work with you. This can probably help answer your question in depth.
Hi Mina,
Yes, I've read it. If you remember, I even quoted him when trying to understand this: He said that man was created mortal and given the gift of immortality. (i'm just paraphrasing him)
I also said to you that my priest told me that Adam & Eve both died a physical and spiritual death. You not only disagreed, but you even mentioned that its a shame that a priest thinks this way. Now you are saying the same thing.
But Adam & Eve didnt exist. They couldn't have existed if evolution was used to give rise to mankind.
Okay...I think I see what the problem is, first let me put to public my message I sent to you:
Death before Adam: This one is more difficult to explain, I suppose, although I am shocked by your priest. Most priests and bishops in the Coptic Church I know have no problem with this. They believe there were dinosaurs that became extinct 65 million years ago. So many bishops and priests I know do not have a problem with pre-Adamic death. However, let us say that a lot of Church fathers believed all things were immortal before Adam. Is this not a testimony of the fact that the Church fathers did not have the advanced scientific tools available to them to understand radiometric dating, genetics, etc to know the age of the earth and the fact that fossils are that old? Will it surprise you dear brother that the Church fathers of the first 400 years after Christ believed that the Nephilim was a product of offspring of angels and women? It wasn't until after the 4th Century when the Church fathers started to teach that angels cannot create offspring with humans due to the philosophy of their time. Does that mean the first 400 years of fathers were heretics? No! There is no such thing as dogma of Nephilim. Dogma is how you can manage to correctly understand the means by which man is properly united to God. The pinnacle of dogma in in the Orthodox Creed.
Therefore, is it dogma to believe whether there was pre-Adamic death or not? I believe not. It matters not to our faith and unity with God whether there was animal death before the creation of Adam or not.
In fact, have you read St. Athanasius "On the Incarnation"? Let me quote to you how he summarizes the creation and the Fall:
"For God is good—or rather, of all goodness He is Fountainhead, and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything. Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked—namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption."
So you see here, St. Athanasius is saying that man is like animals in that by nature we are "impermanent". But God loving man, gave man the grace of immortality and incorruption through a share in His divine image. If they "went astray" and "became vile", they would revert back to "***the natural law of death***". In other words, all creation is made out of nothing. God put in that creation a program that because they are made out of nothing they are liable to nothingness, and to death, to "impermanence". Only man was given that grace to transcend impermanence into the Paradisiacal life with God.
St. Irenaeus also explains the Fall in an interesting manner. I will quote two parts of his "Against the Heresies:"
And thus in all things God has the pre-eminence, who alone is uncreated, the first of all things, and the primary cause of the existence of all, while all other things remain under God's subjection. But being in subjection to God is continuance in immortality, and immortality is the glory of the uncreated One. By this arrangement, therefore, and these harmonies, and a sequence of this nature, man, a created and organized being, is rendered after the image and likeness of the uncreated God—the Father planning everything well and giving His commands, the Son carrying these into execution and performing the work of creating, and the Spirit nourishing and increasing, but man making progress day by day, and ascending towards the perfect, that is, approximating to the uncreated One. For the Uncreated is perfect, that is, God. Now it was necessary that man should in the first instance be created; and having been created, should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened; and having been strengthened, should abound; and having abounded, should recover; and having recovered, should be glorified; and being glorified, should see his Lord. For God is He who is yet to be seen, and the beholding of God is productive of immortality, but immortality renders one near unto God.
and another part:
How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that you, at the outset, should hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For you did not make God, but God you.
So you see here, St. Irenaeus and St. Athanasius both teach man is mortal by nature, and immortality is the nature of God. For man to be immortal, he must be in obedience and in communion with God. St. Irenaeus also teaches that man was created in an infantile state. All things were to be received in due time. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a good tree, but man was not ready for it yet. He needed to grow. The commandment to resist the tree was not a mere test of obedience, but it was also the means by which God made man to grow. When man learns to obey God, man grows, and man is then ready to partake of this special tree. Just as a child is not ready for meat or for certain knowledge, but must grow first, staying away from such things in order to obtain it, so did God make man stay away from this tree to grow and to become more immortal. You ask, how can he be "more immortal". St. Theophilus of Antioch, also from the second century in his "Apology to Autolycus", answers:
And God transferred him from the earth, out of which he had been produced, into Paradise, giving him means of advancement, in order that, maturing and becoming perfect, and being even declared a god, he might thus ascend into heaven in possession of immortality. For man had been made a middle nature, neither wholly mortal, nor altogether immortal, but capable of either...
Notice, God had to transfer him from the earth, where natural death occurs. But God created man with neither immortal or mortal nature. He created man to choose the path to immortality or to mortality. Will he remain in obedience to God? He will grow in immortality. Will man seek his own glory away from God? Man will choose death and corruption with the rest of the world.
Therefore, my dear brother, death before Adam is possible to comprehend, but it is not necessary to believe that there is a dogma of pre-Adamic death or not, so long as we understand that God destined the world for immortality, for sharing in His divine nature by the Word, even if it has not been attained yet. St. Irenaeus taught us that the world was created for it to share in the glory of God. God did not create the world in vain just because He wanted to play with toys. No, He created us out of love, and love means to "give oneself to the other". He created us out of nothing, and yet gave us His very presence to be nourished from. But man sought to nourish himself on his own, making himself his own god. And so we are back on earth, away from the Paradise of Joy. And we relive this nightmare over and over again. The Coptic Gregorian liturgy talks about how you and I are this Adam:
The story of Adam and Eve is the story of all humanity. It is about you and me. I am the one who God warned me about death. How could I know what death is unless it already existed as an example for me to avoid, just as it existed for Adam who knew and saw death? And yet I, like Adam, still disobeyed God. He told me to avoid this tree, and I went towards it and plucked from it the fruit of my sins, that is the sentence of death. Can you see now my friend, how I see Genesis in a spiritual manner? It is about me, and about my continual disobedience, and my arrogance to seek answers of which I am not ready, but patiently waiting, so that when I grow in the grace of God, He may reveal to me the knowledge I seek in His time, not in my own, so that I may grow properly and avoid death. I must strive towards immortality, the immortality that belongs only to God. To partake of immortality is to partake of God, of the holy and divine nature of God. The story of the Tree of Life vs. the Tree of Knowledge echoes what we should choose in priority. Christ is life, and so choose Life and all things will come to you. Choose the Kingdom of Heaven and all things will be added. Set the Kingdom of Heaven and eternal life as your priority, and you will be filled with peace of mind and clarity. Open your heart first, so that your mind and your brain may receive knowledge in proper ways. Pray diligently and seek virtues that you may be ready to be at peace with the knowledge you wish to learn.
Now in all of this, I thought you told me that your priest believed there was no "physical death" before the creation of man. That is what I disagreed with. But I do believe that when man disobeyed God, He lost the ability to transcend his own nature in communion with the All-Holy Immortal. He lost the grace of immortality. As a result, He became like all other things in the world, liable to physical death, and this occurred right after he spiritually died, that is separated Himself from the grace of God.
Maybe you have misunderstood my post: I mentioned that my priest believed that Adam & Eve died 2 deaths: a physical (i.e.they grow old and die) and a spiritual: they die by disunity with God (as they've sinned).
When we add evolution to this: we know that Man came from Apes. The only way man could have evolved from apes was through natural selection and evolution. The only way that this happens is through re-production and death.
So, man, by his very nature, to become man, was mortal (or impermanent, as St Athanasius puts it).
That's OK.
So, after the unity with God, i.e. when God breathed into man His Holy Spirit, man attained the gift of immortality.
But it means that his nature - or physical nature must have changed: he was not destined to die after unity with God. When man lost the gift of immortality, through disobedience with God, he died: spiritual & physical death.
Is that correct?
The open questions are now:
a) did "Adam" really exist? Did God breath into "man" to give him life and was it this man?
b) How on earth could Adam exist given that God made woman from man? That doesn't make sense in terms of evolution:
If we evolved from Apes, it means that God didnt make Eve. Female species were already around; otherwise evolution would not have occurred.
The Bible, in every way possible, seems to contradict evolution.
Minasoliman, the prayer of Reconciliation of the Liturgy of St. Basil quoting a passage from the Wisdom of Solomon says that "death which entered into the world by the envy of the devil."
It does not seem that God who is the Life could create death as St. Athanasius says he is the Fountainhead of all Goodness. It is the same God who wept when He beheld His beloved friend Lazarus lying dead in the tomb, as if to shun death as unnatural. Where in all this does it leave room for death to be a part of the original natural order of things when we are told God created the world and saw that it was good?
If He created death as natural then this was good too, so why did He weep when He saw Lazarus in the tomb, and why do we have a natural disdain for death? Why does the liturgy say that death came by the devil?
If you say it is only physical death than why does Christ say that hell was PREPARED for the devil and his angels.
I remember Tasony telling me they were immortal, and that is why after the fall when they lived to great ages,there was a reduction so as you read on, the ages of man became less and less. In other words mankind slowly lost that immortal beginning through death.
That is correct. Once man is created, God gave Him grace to be immortal. Whether this is by "dust" or by "evolution" makes no difference. Once man sinned, man underwent both spiritual and physical death.
Now your "open questions".
a. Did Adam really exist? This is a question I cannot answer. This is one of those mysteries in my mind that is left for me not to decide. I however would be inclined to say, yes, he did exist. At the moment, it seems so much about the first three chapters of Genesis is cloaked in much mystery, it is very difficult to assess. Like Origen though, I agree that the "trees" are not real physical trees, but represent an allegory. So I take the story mostly allegorical. This leads to your next question:
b. How was Eve created? That also I do not know. What I do know is that this part of Genesis is important because, first of all, there seems to be an interpretation that it was a "rib", but it can also be a "side" of Adam. This part the Church fathers commented on also allegorically in that this represents Christ's side bleeding for the Church. Now does it really matter? At the same time, and perhaps this can also help answer your question, couldn't God make a miracle and form Eve out of Adam's side ANYWAY? Sure! God was incarnate without the sperm of man (and that is dogma!), so what makes this any different (other than the fact that the Virgin birth is dogma and the formation of Eve is not), just because scientific expectations are exceeded?
I have grown comfortable to say on these situations "I don't know" when it comes to literal interpretations simply because I feel they are of little consequence to my faith and dogmas in general. I take the allegory more important than the literal, and I find in the allegory the revelation of Christ and His work of salvation for us.
The next area of problem then becomes interpretation of the Bible. The Church fathers were very fluid when it comes to Genesis. Not everyone agreed across the bat on how to interpret the first parts of Genesis, and to what degree of "literality" one should take. But they all agreed that it must be understood in the light of the revelation of Christ Himself. Therefore, is it for instance a "dogma" that the sun should be created only after the grass and trees were created? No! But the Bible says so! The Bible also says other things that reflect the cultural and philosophical understanding of its time. Genesis chapter 1 reflected the "four elements" theory of creation, "water, air, light/fire, and earth/dust". And you see a patter in chapter one: 1. light 2. water and air 3. earth/plants...and again: 4. light (sun and moon and stars) 5. water and air animals 6. earth animals and man (male and female in His image and likeness) 7. rest, the reason for the Sabbath
But something interesting happens in Chapter 2. It seems the creation story changes. It changes the order of chapter 1. Now, the writer is saying that plants and trees were created, THEN man, THEN animals, and that is all animals, including the air animals, and THEN woman out of man's side. So there is a clear contradiction already between chapters 1 and 2. 1 says air animals and land animals were created before man. 2 says man was created before air and land animals. So I take Origen's approach who does not take these stories literally, but find in them an allegory for how we can understand Christ. St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Basil the Great collected some of the best ORTHODOX writings of Origen for one to read from, particularly how to interpret the Bible, called the "Philocalia" available at tertullian.org/fathers.
Therefore, if you are convinced like me, of the scientific evidence, then you have to be convinced of important dogma and be content with things you cannot answer if they are of no consequence to the important dogmas of the Church.
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." - Origen
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." - St. Augustine
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." - St. Augustine
Am I simply saying that death is natural to the world, and to any man who does not seek communion with God. As St. Athanasius and St. Irenaeus taught, communion with God and knowledge of God is immortality, because God alone is immortal (1 Timothy 6:16). There are therefore two interpretations:
1. God was in intimate communion with all creation until man came and disobeyed God and thus, because of man, all of creation lost communion with God.
2. God was in intimate communion with only man, since only man was made in the image and likeness of God. Therefore, man was immortal so long as he remained in communion. Once he disobeyed God, he lost communion and reverted to mortality with the rest of creation.
So what is "world"? It be taken as the whole creation, or it can be interpreted as man's own life. St. Basil when writing "On the Holy Spirit" in the 53rd paragraph defines "world" as a way of life, a thought process in man. So when commenting on John 14:29, "Yet a little while and the world sees Me no more, but you see Me", the "world" means "those who think carnally". St. Philoxenus of Mabbugh teaches that by partaking of the Holy Spirit, we enter "His world" (Roberta Chesnut, Three Monophysite Christologies), that is we transcend our nature into the divine realm. Therefore, "world" is not always used as an actual "place", but a state of mind of a group of people. Therefore, death entered into the world of man by the envy of the devil. The devil got into man's mind, and introduced us death on a deceptive platter that we accepted, rather than remaining obedient to God.
There is no dogmatic consensus on whether first or second view of "world" is correct. I tend to take the second view for obvious reasons. And therefore, yes! You can still weep for someone who dies, because the image and likeness of God stamped in us reminds us we were made for immortality and incorruption, and not for mortality and corruption.
A final question that you have to challenge yourself. Why is that we need the grace of God to be immortal? Why didn't God just create us with biological immortality? One can wonder, God made all things "good", but why did He not make things "better" by allowing immortality through created means, rather than by communion with Him? Why should I have to be created to obey God and accept His Only Begotten Son to be immortal? Is it "good" that we should undergo death if we are not united to Him? So then, there is a merciful reason for death, isn't there?
Question Why did they live so long at the start of the bible if we descended from apes?
That's like saying "why did we live so long at the start of the bible if we descended from dust?" What makes your question any better than the literal? I would like to know the logic behind your question.
"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." - Origen
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." - St. Augustine
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." - St. Augustine
For the same reason there was the tree of life and the thorn of death revealed to us. God told us that our actions have consequences, so we really chose death over Life (the I AM).
But if it is part of the natural order of things, then it is God who created physical death (and some verses argue spiritual death too "hell which was prepared for the devil and his angels").
On the other hand, death is introduced by the devil in our liturgy and in other books (like the Wisdom of Solomon).
I am still struggling to see how you are reconciling these two views. If death existed before Adam as you say, then evolution is a possibility. If it didn't, it is claimed to not be part of the original natural order and it is hard to see how it can be a possibility.
Question Why did they live so long at the start of the bible if we descended from apes?
That's like saying "why did we live so long at the start of the bible if we descended from dust?" What makes your question any better than the literal? I would like to know the logic behind your question.
Because I don't understand that if we were descended from apes and if by the Holy Spirit they were granted long life. Why wouldn't God tell us that?
Comments
I'm curious as to why my post above hasn't been answered. What kind of evolution are you positing? . Single cell? humanoid? I'm genuinely curious, because there are different schools of thought. I am ignorant in this subject compared to most.
Also, at what point where we stamped with His image during the course of evolution. Since that would be impossible to answer, my follow up question is, was that change over night, was it a molecular change, a conscious change? Was the soul suddenly aware of the self? How can Christian anthropology suddenly accept something this crucial before being tested and observed or at the very least confirmed by myriad more fossils and relics left for us?
But aside from that, there's nothing irrelevant about the image of man in relation to God. Isn't this a central question? Accusing me of "protestant concerns" may also be a scapegoat.
I don't want to see you become adversarial which I'd like to reset by restating my position. I neither accept or reject evolution as an explanation of the world. I'm just questioning. You've said I don't understand "spiritual anthropology" but I think asking the simple question of God's image in man is valid, at least to me. What is the basis of spiritual anthropology to you?
You stated in the other thread evolution is how we got here, and now it's up to us to ascend to God. (or something along those lines)
Well that makes sense to a minimalist but a deep theology of being and existence takes an issue with some of that assertion. What is God's image to you and when was it inherited by man? When God breathed in man, at what point in our process did it take place? If this question is ignorant to you, I can't change your perception, but at the very least I'm owed an answer. It is important to me.
Again, i've said before I don't know as much as most people when it comes to this topic but there are valid questions that we should attempt to answer.
My assertion is this, we can't be scared to ask the hard questions. Even if we reach an impasse or a mystery then so be it, but at least we tried and failed. We don't know the mystery of the trinity, Christology, Grace, etc, but Orthodoxy has laid to rest this scholastic vs the mystical and appropriates boundaries within to freely allow us to examine and meditate.
If evolution is strictly an explanation of the world then we have to assume that science doesn't fully explain the spiritual. It can't.
If you don't want to answer me since I'm below your level of knowledge, i accept that but i want everyone to see that this isn't a science vs mystical.. If the science is true then it's true. God is the creator and benefactor of all, but we need to understand that science can't be out of mere inference especially when it deals with an essential question of existence.
I oppose evolution because it takes a material worldly view and I think intelligent design is just a compromise which came from some protestant.
Why do you let it worry you Zoxsasi