| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Aristokles
Average Member
USA
931 Posts |
 Posted - 11/25/2006 : 17:26:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Baylumzass
Aristokles, my point about your Bishop and your reasoning is that it is a double standard. You condemn me for demanding rejection of Evolution as an Orthodox Christian. You say that we allow liberty to decide for ourselves in the Orthodox Church by leaving that question unanswered and undefined.
I do not condemn you,; I in fact said if such a belief as you hold makes you a better Christian, great. Neither view is dogma, which is what you demand. Ain't going to happen.
quote:
Then to prove that evolution is true you quote a Bishop who imposes his evolutionary view of creation upon his readers as though it was True Orthodox Tradition. He violates your own standard...
Again, I do not seek to prove anything but that the issue is meaningless to our mission.
quote:
"The Church does not, RC or Protestant-style, demand belief in this or many other so-called issues - one way or the other. It does maintain that to attempt to hone belief to every scientific discovery is tantamount to engaging in a form of scholasticism, something we don't do."
The hypocrisy and fraud of such a contradictory argument is plain to anyone who takes a look.
I find it common for Christian evolutionists to demand tollerance and an agreement to disagree politely, yet when one says they reject evolution as a harmful and Satanic idea that tollerance vanishes from the attitude of the evolutionist. They immediately launch into invectives about how the anti-evolutionist is stupid, uneducated, incapable of understanding scientific concepts, etc.
That my friend is double standard and hypocrisy.
I will leave the insults to you... a clear sign of losing the joust you display. |
 |
|
|
macacic
Moderator
USA
1968 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2006 : 20:12:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Baylumzass
That my friend is classic Unitarian deism.
Even blind squirrels occasionally find a nut.
However, my statement is not classic Unitarian deism. Interesting strawman, however. |
Edited by - macacic on 11/27/2006 08:12:12 |
|
|
|
Emanuel
Junior Member
USA
338 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2007 : 21:48:03
|
| IMHO, an ape couldn't have hung on the Cross. The Romans were already creating too much monkey business. |
|
|
|
Bryan
Starting Member
USA
10 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2010 : 17:07:02
|
It is rather distressing to see such interpretation of "image" when referring to the "image of God" in which we are created. What, specifically, do the Church Fathers say about this image? First, let us consult St. Cyril of Alexandria:
"And when everything in the world had finally been created, when nothing for lacking to supply the needs of man, then, and only then, did the Creator begin to think of the way in which He was going to realise man himself. Because the creation of man, unlike the other creative acts, could not be improvised. The supreme being, in the conception of some and actually, is just grandeur and perfection -- some even say that it is the loss of any spirit, any language, any admiration: however He decided to form the animal in His own image, as much as could be made." --Against Julian, Book 2.
Who is "the animal"? We are the animal. That's right, even if formed in God's image, St. Cyril still regards us as an animal.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem also used terms that leads one to question just how simplistically physical the image might be, to wit: "Know also that thou hast a soul self governed, the noblest work of God, made after the image of its Creator, immortal because of God that gives it immortality, a living being rational, imperishable, because of Him that bestowed these gifts: having free power to do what it willeth."
Likewise, if one applies reason to the belief that the image of God refers to physical likeness, one must conclude that women are more imperfect in that image than are men. Likewise, those born with deformities have less of the image of God within them, as would be anyone who has suffered a physical injury leading to deformity.
The ultraphysicalist interpretation of the image of God strikes me as something very Protestant in its worldview.
And what of the physical form of our Lord, in any case? St. Justin Martyr states "He hath no form or comeliness, and when we saw Him He had no form or beauty".
Finally, St. Ambrose of Milan even went so far as to say about Christ that "He was a worm upon the Cross." in his letter to Sabinus. St. Ambrose did not mean a literal "worm", of course, but a worm is no more exalted than is an ape.
I think issue of Orthodox understanding of the image of God within us is not to be relegated to the simple modern-day sound bite approach.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. |
|
|
|
Yiorgos75
Junior Member
Australia
461 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 22:45:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bryan
It is rather distressing to see such interpretation of "image" when referring to the "image of God" in which we are created. What, specifically, do the Church Fathers say about this image? First, let us consult St. Cyril of Alexandria:
"And when everything in the world had finally been created, when nothing for lacking to supply the needs of man, then, and only then, did the Creator begin to think of the way in which He was going to realise man himself. Because the creation of man, unlike the other creative acts, could not be improvised. The supreme being, in the conception of some and actually, is just grandeur and perfection -- some even say that it is the loss of any spirit, any language, any admiration: however He decided to form the animal in His own image, as much as could be made." --Against Julian, Book 2.
This this letter was most probably written in Koine Greek, can you please tell us exactly which word from the Greek was used? English is such a poor language for translation that it may very well be that St Cyril may have used the word for "creation/created thing" (Gr: ÷ôßóìá) rather than a reference to "animal" which in Greek is Æþïí (phone: zohon) |
|
|
|
defenderofchrist
Starting Member
9 Posts |
Posted - 07/14/2010 : 16:14:51
|
Looking at Genesis and comparing it to the cosmological as well as biological evolution modern scientists espouse, one can pick up on a few similarities. One I always like to point out when it comes to evolution is from what did God create man. Genesis 2:7 says, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." The most commonly accepted theory currently for the origin of life on Earth held states that the first organisms came from the dirt in the ground as simple bacteria then developed more organelles becoming more complex cells then eventually became more complex and more complex until eventually we get the animals of today.
Now notice that I myself left out every step of the way...similarly when Genesis was written it'd make sense to leave out every step of the way. And why? Because while, yes, it's nice to now how God created the universe if one is attempting to obtain salvation, why does it matter? And simply put, it doesn't.
The next thing many evolutionary biologists do leave out is while we do have evidence for the physical evolution of man, there is still no evidence that man's evolved capacity for logic and reason came about at the random.
So in conclusion, while there is evidence for evolution, it means nothing against the case for God. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Did an ape hang on the cross?
