Why I'm a follower of Christ

[Adolf Hitler]

JOE BIDEN confused BIG BOSS and SOLID SNAKE at press conference

Tbh weird game to pick as your pfp, pw is the weakest game in the series (That I've played)

 

[AR47]

>bros, reddit told me the earth is 6 gorillion years old but this other guy says otherwise. How do I reconcile my faith with this?
View attachment 3409

I mean it is a pretty serious problem. Unless you believe that the fall was some kind of meta-historical event or that death existed before the fall (or some other hypothesis)

 

[Spas]

I mean it is a pretty serious problem. Unless you believe that the fall was some kind of meta-historical event or that death existed before the fall (or some other hypothesis)

It's not a very serious problem for a lot of Christians. I'd even call it inconsequential, the Orthodox Church doesn't even have an official doctrine regarding old/young earth. I don't see how old earth would contradict the literal interpretation of the fall either. Personally I don't believe the earth is a billion years old because I don't trust labcoats and because of a meme I saw 5 years ago I can't find, aside from that it just doesn't concern me.

 

[Dremora]

It's not a very serious problem for a lot of Christians. I'd even call it inconsequential, the Orthodox Church doesn't even have an official doctrine regarding old/young earth. I don't see how old earth would contradict the literal interpretation of the fall either.

I would say the Orthodox Church does have an official position on the matter and I'd say it's not an inconsequential matter at all.

"That Adam was not created by God subject to death

That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body — that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema."

Canon 1 of the 418 Council of Carthage makes it clear that to hold the view of death existing prior to the fall is indeed a heresy. Evolution presupposes death, old earth presupposes death. That applies to so-called theistic evolution aswell.

Moreover, Orthodox saints, both ancient and modern, directly contradict with evolution in their sayings and writings. There's a clear consensus among them, and indeed you cannot find a single Orthodox saint who spoke up in favor of evolution, every single one of them saw evolution as a heresy and defended a young earth instead.

A few examples from the more ancient saints, here's Ephraim the Syrian.

No one should think that the six-day creation is an allegory; likewise it is impermissible to speak as if … names herewith presented in the account signify either nothing, or signify something else.

And then you have Saint Basil the Great dissing those who do not take genesis literally.

I know the rules of allegory … There are those who, accepting what is written not in its plain sense, say that that which is called water is not water, but some other substance, and to plants and fish they give a meaning of their own discretion. But hearing of grass, I understand grass; and plants, fish, beasts and livestock—everything—as it is called so I receive, not being ashamed of the Gospel (Rom. 1:16) … It seems to me it is this which has not been comprehended by those who, according to their own understanding, have set out to give some soaring and panoramic importance to the Scripture. But it means to set up oneself as wiser than the sayings of the Spirit and under the guise of interpretation to introduce one’s own thoughts. Therefore we will understand it as is written.

Moving on to more modern saints, St. John of Kronstadt also spoke about this, and precisely within the framework of the theory of evolution and the resulting geological models of an “old earth,” as contradicting the narration of the six days of creation:

The Holy Scriptures speak more truly and more clearly of the world than the world itself or the arrangement of the earthly strata; the scriptures of nature within it, being dead and voiceless, cannot express anything definite. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Were you with God when He created the universe? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being His counseller, hath taught Him? (Is. 40:13)" And yet you geologists boast that you have understood the mind of the Lord, in the arrangement of strata, and maintained it in spite of Holy Writ! You believe more in the dead letters of the earthly strata, in the soulless earth, than in the Divinely-inspired words of the great prophet Moses, who saw God.

And, finally, we have St. Justin Popovich.

This theology, which bases its anthropology on the “scientific” theory of evolution, is nothing but “contradictio in adjecto” (a contradiction of definition). In truth, it is a theology without God and anthropology without man.

I think that should make it clear what exactly the position of the Orthodox Church is, the reason modern church patriarchs don't make a clear condemnation of evolution is first due to lukewarmness of our own clergy, and second because all of this has already been answered. There were people who believed the earth was billions of years old back in ancient times aswell, and there were people who said we come from fish or whatever back then aswell. For the Orthodox Church to condemn evolution now would be like making an announcement saying Judaism is a false religion, it is something everyone should know by default because it has been declared as such already during the patristic era. There is nothing new about the heresy of evolution.

Don't get me wrong though, this isn't an argument or anything. We're more or less on the same page, I just felt that your response was a bit too weak since it doesn't rule out an old earth entirely.

 

[Spas]

I would say the Orthodox Church does have an official position on the matter and I'd say it's not an inconsequential matter at all.

"That Adam was not created by God subject to death

That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body — that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema."

Canon 1 of the 418 Council of Carthage makes it clear that to hold the view of death existing prior to the fall is indeed a heresy. Evolution presupposes death, old earth presupposes death. That applies to so-called theistic evolution aswell.

Moreover, Orthodox saints, both ancient and modern, directly contradict with evolution in their sayings and writings. There's a clear consensus among them, and indeed you cannot find a single Orthodox saint who spoke up in favor of evolution, every single one of them saw evolution as a heresy and defended a young earth instead.

A few examples from the more ancient saints, here's Ephraim the Syrian.

And then you have Saint Basil the Great dissing those who do not take genesis literally.

Moving on to more modern saints, St. John of Kronstadt also spoke about this, and precisely within the framework of the theory of evolution and the resulting geological models of an “old earth,” as contradicting the narration of the six days of creation:

And, finally, we have St. Justin Popovich.


I think that should make it clear what exactly the position of the Orthodox Church is, the reason modern church patriarchs don't make a clear condemnation of evolution is first due to lukewarmness of our own clergy, and second because all of this has already been answered. There were people who believed the earth was billions of years old back in ancient times aswell, and there were people who said we come from fish or whatever back then aswell. For the Orthodox Church to condemn evolution now would be like making an announcement saying Judaism is a false religion, it is something everyone should know by default because it has been declared as such already during the patristic era. There is nothing new about the heresy of evolution.

Don't get me wrong though, this isn't an argument or anything. We're more or less on the same page, I just felt that your response was a bit too weak since it doesn't rule out an old earth entirely.

I think there's some misunderstanding, I didn't mention evolution because I agree fully with you, does "old earth" theory encompass evolution too? I figured it only had to do with the age of earth/universe which I thought of as relatively inconsequential. Are the two a package deal?
Also I always thought evolution/old earth isn't explicitly condemned by the Church to avoid alienating gullible people who fell for the science psyop (better to let them into the church and give them a chance to drop the psyop then to drive them away)

 

[Dremora]

does "old earth" theory encompass evolution too? I figured it only had to do with the age of earth/universe which I thought of as relatively inconsequential. Are the two a package deal?

I think there is such a thing called "old earth creationism" if you will. There are indeed people who believe the earth is billions of years old and reject evolution at the same time. It seems like the position of fence sitters if anything. So I guess it's not a package deal.

But I'd still say it's not inconsequential at all. We have canons which make direct references to the age of the earth when the council in question took place aswell. And obviously the saints explicitly defend a young earth. They are not leaving any possibility of believing in an old earth there. Council of Trullo in 692 AD makes this explicit mention about the age of the earth.

... as of the fifteenth day of the month of January last past, in the last fourth Indiction, in the year six thousand one hundred and ninety"

They followed a different calendar called Byzantine Calendar which was based on the Julian Calendar. The current year would be 7533 according to this. There was also the Byzantine historian Doukas who calculated the amount of time that passed from Adam to Christ, and he declares that to be roughly 5500 years. No indication of any old earth belief here, they were all doing their calculations with the assumption of a young earth. Some dates may be slightly inaccurate because the fathers were not concerned with precision. That small inaccuracy is inconsequential. But old earth is a complete distortion and cannot be looked at in the same way.

And finally, Augustine of Hippo, writing around the early 400's, says this about the age of the earth:

"Let us omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race...They are deceived by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have passed. (City of God 12:10)."

 

[Liquid Chud]

Do you mind saying what branch of it? I'm Reformed and I've frequented a Presby church for a big while, but in my country we have a neo-puritan movement which I disagree with. Stuff like not celebrating Christmas, which is absolutely jewed. Not sure if I'll look for another one or just be one of those guys that don't go to church.

Yeah my pastor blocked me after I went to talk to him about not going. "I wouldn't mind it even if you vanished", proceeds to block on two platforms I have him on.

Nigger pastor never again.

 

[Swede Immigrant]

Yeah my pastor blocked me after I went to talk to him about not going. "I wouldn't mind it even if you vanished", proceeds to block on two platforms I have him on.

Nigger pastor never again.

What a faggot.

 

[AR47]

I would say the Orthodox Church does have an official position on the matter and I'd say it's not an inconsequential matter at all.

"That Adam was not created by God subject to death

That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body — that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema."

Canon 1 of the 418 Council of Carthage makes it clear that to hold the view of death existing prior to the fall is indeed a heresy. Evolution presupposes death, old earth presupposes death. That applies to so-called theistic evolution aswell.

Moreover, Orthodox saints, both ancient and modern, directly contradict with evolution in their sayings and writings. There's a clear consensus among them, and indeed you cannot find a single Orthodox saint who spoke up in favor of evolution, every single one of them saw evolution as a heresy and defended a young earth instead.

A few examples from the more ancient saints, here's Ephraim the Syrian.

And then you have Saint Basil the Great dissing those who do not take genesis literally.

Moving on to more modern saints, St. John of Kronstadt also spoke about this, and precisely within the framework of the theory of evolution and the resulting geological models of an “old earth,” as contradicting the narration of the six days of creation:

And, finally, we have St. Justin Popovich.


I think that should make it clear what exactly the position of the Orthodox Church is, the reason modern church patriarchs don't make a clear condemnation of evolution is first due to lukewarmness of our own clergy, and second because all of this has already been answered. There were people who believed the earth was billions of years old back in ancient times aswell, and there were people who said we come from fish or whatever back then aswell. For the Orthodox Church to condemn evolution now would be like making an announcement saying Judaism is a false religion, it is something everyone should know by default because it has been declared as such already during the patristic era. There is nothing new about the heresy of evolution.

Don't get me wrong though, this isn't an argument or anything. We're more or less on the same page, I just felt that your response was a bit too weak since it doesn't rule out an old earth entirely.

Debunk all this then.
https://files.catbox.moe/n6jvvj.mp4

 

[Dremora]

Debunk all this then.
https://files.catbox.moe/n6jvvj.mp4

There is nothing to debunk. I trust the tradition of the church more than your worthless science. Keep it.

 

[SiegeChud]

I’m Protestant.

okay but what kind

 

[SiegeChud]

okay but what kind

these are both protestant churches from the same city

 

[SiegeChud]

There is nothing to debunk. I trust the tradition of the church more than your worthless science. Keep it.

denying science when its objectively correct is not apart of church history nor is it biblical in the slightest

 

[Liquid Chud]

okay but what kind

He said earlier in the thread that it's something along the Reformed tradition.

 

[Seraphim]

Yeah my pastor blocked me after I went to talk to him about not going. "I wouldn't mind it even if you vanished", proceeds to block on two platforms I have him on.

Nigger pastor never again.

Perhaps it was meant to be.

 

[AR47]

There is nothing to debunk. I trust the tradition of the church more than your worthless science. Keep it.

Which Tradition you follow is still determined by reasons. People don't start believing things for no reason. And I think empirical evidence is a valid reason by which I can judge the veracity of claims. Logic>empirical evidence>personal intuition.