"who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Corinthians 3:6)
"who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." (2 Corinthians 3:6)
^
It is dangerous counter-arguments like that, taking verses out of context which makes it impossible to have a rational conversation sometimes. I don't blame some people for doing it though. it just becomes a part of online discourse. I just hope we can all be a bit more cautious and know what we're quoting from and what topic the passage intended to talk about.
I'm also fed up of people trying to teach me lessons here. I'm asking questions that theologians have been asked and cannot answer.
What is wrong with everyone?
OK. Here are the answers to Mina's questions:
1. How is creation from dust different than a more advanced dust of the ape?
OK. Creation from dust means that Adam (as a person) and Eve as a person were created. They existed. It means that God did not intend for mankind to die physically NOR spiritually. If we evolved , it means that death was part of God's design. IT MAKES NO SENSE. SALVATION AND EVOLUTION MAKES NO SENSE!!
1a. If you're worried about death, can dust be made naturally immortal?
That question makes no sense. You mean can the human soul be made to be immortal?
1b. If dust is not naturally immortal, then did God create us to die? But if He didn't create us to die, how is it that dust is not immortal?
No idea what you are talking about here. You lost me.
1c. If dust can be made naturally immortal, why do we need God?
You've lost me with this question.
2. How are you created from God when in fact your parents created you?
My original, childhood, biblical understanding, no matter how immature it was, is as follows:
God created the heavens and earth and EVERYTHING therein. He created mankind. I'm just an offspring of my parents. But God created us. So, although I'm genetically and biologically from my parents; my race; the human race was started by God through Adam and Eve.
3. Is Adam and Eve made in the image of dust if they are created from dust?
If they existed, they are made in the image of God.
4. If evolution leads to immorality, how do I explain the Biblical passages of genocide in the Old Testament? Did God give Joshua a philosophy of evolution to destroy vast communities? Or as Richard Dawkins argues, is religion the source of genocide, and reason and intellect the source of common sense?
No idea what you are talking about here, Mina. I'm confused by these questions. They don't make sense for me to answer them.
1. How is creation from dust different than a more advanced dust of the ape?
OK. Creation from dust means that Adam (as a person) and Eve as a person were created. They existed. It means that God did not intend for mankind to die physically NOR spiritually. If we evolved , it means that death was part of God's design. IT MAKES NO SENSE. SALVATION AND EVOLUTION MAKES NO SENSE!!
How is dust intended for man to not die physically? "That makes no sense".
1a. If you're worried about death, can dust be made naturally immortal?
That question makes no sense. You mean can the human soul be made to be immortal?
1b. If dust is not naturally immortal, then did God create us to die? But if He didn't create us to die, how is it that dust is not immortal?
No idea what you are talking about here. You lost me.
1c. If dust can be made naturally immortal, why do we need God?
2. How are you created from God when in fact your parents created you?
My original, childhood, biblical understanding, no matter how immature it was, is as follows:
God created the heavens and earth and EVERYTHING therein. He created mankind. I'm just an offspring of my parents. But God created us. So, although I'm genetically and biologically from my parents; my race; the human race was started by God through Adam and Eve.
If your parents created you, how can you say God created you? "That makes no sense"
3. Is Adam and Eve made in the image of dust if they are created from dust?
If they existed, they are made in the image of God.
But how are they in the image of God if they're created from dust? "That makes no sense".
4. If evolution leads to immorality, how do I explain the Biblical passages of genocide in the Old Testament? Did God give Joshua a philosophy of evolution to destroy vast communities? Or as Richard Dawkins argues, is religion the source of genocide, and reason and intellect the source of common sense?
No idea what you are talking about here, Mina. I'm confused by these questions. They don't make sense for me to answer them.
Do you even read the Bible? Have you read the book of Joshua? Or even just the book of Genesis by itself, filled with the immorality of great figures, all of which have nothing to do with evolution.
Zoxsasi, there are two ways to argue. One is to think you're right and you have to disprove everyone else who disagrees which also means you have to stop listening to others.
The other way is to ask a question, give your understanding on the topic, listen to others and be willing to change your mind if others present clear arguments.
So far you have been doing the first way or arguing. You are not presenting any real challenges to what minasoliman has explained to you, in fact your answers show that you don't adequately understand what he is saying. You keep bringing up the same already answered objections.
Lastly, stop putting God in a box and saying He had to create like this or that. Understand that God is a mystery and when we make Him subject to our specific interpretation of a text we are not treating Him as mystery.
Let's take a small break for a second. Have you actually read the link that Andrew gave?
You accept evolution as a given fact. That's the problem. We are all here because you've convinced us that evolution is true. The above link is also from a Coptic Church site and disputes evolutionary processes as being the pre-cursor to human life.
I don't see why the focus of this thread is about me understanding your perspective. Why don't you address the points the author makes in the above Coptic blog on evolution??
I'm very calm and I am careful not repeating things I already wrote, since the article says nothing new and I already refuted it. I'm trying now to understand you. You have not really answered my questions. You are vague in your answers. Please explain them. I want to understand dust theology.
God creating us from dust = the acceptance that Adam & Eve existed.
The two persons, Mr Adam and Mrs Eve actually, physically existed.
Why?
Because God creating them out of dust meant that the end product was someone. If we had evolved, would all of evolution produced just ONE human being called "Adam" ?? God making man (Adam) out of dust isn't the start of some evolutionary process.
So let's take evolutionary theory here and let it run the course of its inherent logic: Life started from smaller life forms and over billions and billions of years, these life forms evolved into every specie with know today, including humans.
The end result of that process would not have produced Mr Adam and Mrs Eve. It would have produced MANY Adams and MANY Eve's.
Why is that important? Because according to our theology, ONE MAN (mr Adam 01) sinned and we inherited the consequences of his sin: ie. we died.
IF Mr Adam 01 didn't sin, then there wouldn't have been the fall of man. You see? This is dust theology.
The above article by Andrew was apparently written by a Coptic Priest.
Do you understand that you are taking on the entire Coptic Orthodox Church here??
Not that I mind.. i don't care; but please bear in mind that when you write, its not just me with a comprehension problem. Apparently, the entire coptic orthodox clergy are also on the same page as me.
Which, by the way, maybe totally incorrect; but as i said: our theology is based on the fact that Adam existed; and because of his sin, all mankind fell. If he didnt exist (i.e. if evolution is true) - then what on earth do we believe in? I explained to you "dust theology" - but i still don't understand Evolution Theology
I actually appreciate the fact that you explained it to me. That makes it much clearer, BUT there are other questions you have not answered. You still did not explain how dust makes man not intended to die. Can God create immortality out of dust? What makes man immortal? And since Adam and Eve were created from dust, how are they not made in the image of dust? And how can you say that God created you when He did not, but rather your parents created you? It just makes no sense. Is God really your Creator when He was not involved in making you, but your own parents?
Some other questions for you. How old do you believe the earth is? Do you believe dinosaurs were killed before Adam and Eve were created, or do you believe death of animals came only after Adam and Eve sinned?
The "entire Coptic Church" is not accurate. I have spoken with Coptic priests, both who agree and disagree with me, on this issue, and I suspect the tide will change in the future. I disagree with the priest who wrote the article because of his misguided approach in explaining both the science and the Scriptural interpretation.
Your explanation of "many Adams" and "many Eves" is something I sympathize with. That's why I presented my disagreement with BeeKay and did not find a strict adherence to evolutionary science contradict the miracle of at least one Adam and one Eve. I do however acknowledge and concede that other men and women also existed alongside Adam and Eve. Practically all Church fathers in the first four centuries believed angels can copulate with humans and produce hybrid offspring. That does not make these things "dogma". And we are not just dealing with the Coptic Orthodox Church. I gave you some Eastern Orthodox links earlier, a metropolitan and a priest, both telling the Coptic priest from that article he's wrong. And to be fair, I also read Eastern Orthodox theologians who were against evolution, but the arguments they presented were not the same as the Coptic priest's arguments. If some of the Eastern Orthodox anti-evolutionists read Abouna's anti-evolution article and did not know who the author was, they would have assumed it was written by a Protestant. So, frankly, I am not very happy about these "Biblical" arguments some of our Church members make because they treat the Bible like a Quran. I have a lot more respect for Fr. Seraphim Rose's arguments than for that priest's.
Do you appreciate the heftiness of this subject on the faith of our Church members? Especially the younger generation.
Our current Church theology, or at least what is being taught to our Children pertaining to Christ's incarnation and ultimate death and resurrection is intertwined and based - SOLEY BASED on the story and events in Genesis.
If the foundation of our understanding of the Bible is wrong, then everything built on top of it is wrong.
Do you appreciate this?
So let's assume there were many Adam's and many Eve's.. all of whom were a bit wet behind the ears and were extremely hairy people who came from apes - why did Christ die for? What did Christ come for?
Before I went to college, when I finished high school, I was a staunch anti-evolutionist because I ate everything Sunday School teachers taught. I was one of those kids who saw a future in the Church in the direction of people like Fr. Anthony Messeh and Fr. Bishoy Salama, and thought that others who reject them are like "Salafi" fundamentalists who like to condemn everyone and have no grounding in real Christian life (now I happen to be one of those people who happen to abhor the way Fr. Anthony and Fr. Bishoy conducts their services and teachings).
Then I went to college. I chose for my degree Life Sciences, particularly centered around biology and chemistry. I had a strong interest in genetics because this is one subject I loved and excelled, and I believed the future of medicine centered around it. I also had a strong religious background from my church, and in my college I met Indian Orthodox colleagues who described their Church to me. I never knew the Coptic Church had sister churches. I thought the Coptic Church was the "one true Church". I never heard of the Oriental Orthodox Church. I had some idea on other "Orthodox" churches, but that was an afterthought in my mind. For all intents and purposes, I equated "Coptic" with "Orthodoxy". But this person opened me up a bit to a world of Orthodoxy I have not realized. So I went to my Father of Confession, I told him, and he told me about the concept of "sister churches". I began a process where I wanted to start an "Orthodox Christian Club" in my university. During my first year of college, I took every opportunity to understand the history of the Orthodox Church, and the history of the split at the Council of Chalcedon as well as the dialogues between EOs and OOs in the 1960s to the present. All of this convinced me that the "Orthodox Christian Club" should include Greeks and Russians, and with the blessing of HG Bishop David and various Coptic priests, I sought out the Eastern Orthodox in this pursuit. By the second year of my time in college, I have developed a relationship with a Greek Orthodox priest and an Indian Orthodox subdeacon (now deacon), as well as a Coptic club from another college who already had a constitution, adopted their constitution, changed a few words and structures, and registered, and the Orthodox Christian Club was born.
During this time, simultaneously, I was bombarded with things that brought a shock value to me, and you can generally split this into two groups, my scientific background and my religious background. As I learned more about science, my faith to the core was shaken. I remember stories of my father telling me to be careful with ignorant priests because they may make the Church look bad. He related to me a story when he was in medical school and a priest tried to "medically" explain why a woman had to wait 80 days for a female child to be baptized and 40 days for a male child, which only made the priest look more ignorant, and encouraged medical students in my father's class to abandon the Church as a Church filled with ignorant people who teaches bogus medicine. My father was a very strongly religious person, and he was saddened to see how some people in the Church decided to hurt the situation.
Well, I went through this same faith-shaking. Since my background concentrated on genetics and research in genetics, I had a major struggle. This is the fork in the road that could really make or break you, because now I came to a point, by my third year in college, that evolution is a scientific fact, and I cannot ignore this. I thank the Lord my God I developed relationships with Indian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and a few Coptic Orthodox priests and Church servants who also shared my struggle and told me how the Orthodox faith does not contradict my scientific studies, especially evolution.
The other side that was faith-shaking moment was starting to learn about the Orthodox theology of deification among other things (I was exposed first by Palamism; now after much reading, I have started to move away from Palamism and started to focus on the pre-Chalcedonian understanding of deification). At that point, I decided that my trust would be in reading more Church history and the Church fathers FIRST, and then compare this with what some priests and Church leaders say or write today. I took some time off, then I went to medical school, and year after year, my knowledge and my faith grew, and my ideas about Genesis matured.
So yes, I do appreciate the heftiness of this subject because this affected my faith. But it does not take one a few months to finally comprehend this. It took me YEARS to finally be comfortable and strong with my Orthodox faith. It was as if I went through a re-catechesis. I read so many things, from anti-evolutionist Protestants, to pro-evolutionist Protestants, anti-evolutionist Catholics and Orthodox to pro-evolutionist Catholics and Orthodox, talked with many Coptic, Indian, and Greek Orthodox clergy on the subject, read theology and Orthodox history writings, read the Church fathers, became very open about what I have come to believe and about how it shook my faith, and was guided the whole way through with love by my own father of confession (who actually disagrees with me on this subject).
A couple of years ago, I had an argument with a good friend of mine on this issue. A couple of weeks ago, my friend forgot we had this argument, and instead he came to me expressing doubt in the Church because he studied the science and could not take the arguments made by our Church seriously anymore. Keep in mind, he does not remember my discussion I had with him years ago. Now, I am there at the right moment to tell him how I approach the issue, and he understood everything I said. It took him years to comprehend and to struggle, and I had to show him how our Orthodox theology does not contradict this at all. Just recently, there was a person who was struggling psychiatrically and shared with me how the Coptic priest that person saw did not believe the person should be psychiatrically treated, despite the fact the person had a very serious clinical depression. And this has nothing to do with evolution, but everything to do with priests who think they can answer every question spiritually against (rather than with in a holistic way) scientific and medical advances in life.
So do I appreciate this problem? ABSOLUTELY! Because I was there in the dark and I prayed to Christ, even with anger against Him, trying to understand why and how. Now I know, Christ became man so that man might become God, not by nature, but by grace. That's what man was offered in the beginning, and man failed at it by trying to become his own god without God. Now Christ came to fulfill His promises for us and to strengthen us in our failures. This is the foundation of my understanding of the Orthodox faith.
Now, Zoxsasi (or Tobit or anyone else), can you answer my questions that you have refused to answer?
We have been arguing about this topic and i see no end to it.....so how about we be concise and objective in everything we say from now on.....8 pages people!!!!!
You seem to hold great importance to the questions you are asking me rather than just answering the questions I have; as if by me answering you, I will have somehow discovered the secrets of Genesis and Evolutionary Genetics.
I answered you mate.
I told you that God created me. Yes, I came from the union of my parents, but life ultimately comes from God. The union of the sperm and egg is God's design, so my parents are simply a tool or vessel in which they exercised God's plan for mankind.
However, it doesn't mean that God used evolution to create Adam & Eve. As I've said, if Adam and Eve had not existed (i.e. the TWO personalities, the two distinct creations of God) - then our theology is bankrupt.
What we believe in makes no sense.
Explain to me why God needs to become man? Why did He die on the cross for?? I thought it was to redeem Adam after he sold himself to satan. Adam didnt even exist as a real person (according to Evolutionary Biology).
So, is your main problem the number of "first human beings"? Do you believe only one male and one female should be dogma?
Hi Mina,
Yes. It IS already dogma in our Church. Our entire theology, so far, is based on the fact that ONE man (MISTER ADAM) and ONE Woman (MRS. EVE) existed.
Its because they existed and sinned that all of mankind inherited this corrupted nature.
If they didnt exist, if they were not 2 distinct individuals who sinned, then the basis for all our understanding of Christ's coming is incorrect.
Hence, explain to me WHY Christ came for if 2 distinct persons didnt exist and they probably didnt even sin. In fact, according to you, they were already destined to die anyway.
Well, we will agree to disagree on that. I base my whole theology on Christ, and I think that's how the Church fathers based their whole theology as well. Theology is knowledge of God in Christ, not in man. Theology is about the New Adam and the New Eve, not the old.
Well, we will agree to disagree on that. I base my whole theology on Christ, and I think that's how the Church fathers based their whole theology as well. Theology is knowledge of God in Christ, not in man. Theology is about the New Adam and the New Eve, not the old.
Can God create immortality out of dust?
Yes, God can create immortality out of dust.
But then whom did He make immortal? What sort of immortality did He intend: Physical or Spiritual only? or both? i.e. was physical death always a given intent??
How can God who is life giving, create anything that leads to death?
Whom did God make immortal? Adam didnt exist as a person then.
Why do we inherit a corrupt nature? Or is that just nonsense ??
How can we inherit a corrupt nature if Adam didnt exist (according to you)??
If dust is immortal, then you've made God co-essential with creation. Immortality is not created; it is uncreated. God did not create divine nature.
I can agree to disagree on your "one Adam and one Eve" doctrine, but the idea that immortality can be created is heresy and has no support in the Church fathers or the Bible. And this is the crux of your problem Zoxsasi. What this tells me is when you read St. Athanasius "On the Incarnation" you understood nothing from him.
how does the number of people who fell from Paradise affect our theology of salvation? It is pretty clear that as humanity, as created to be one Body and in harmony, we fell together since we are interconnected as shown in the story of Adam and Eve.
Again some Church Fathers like Origen believe Adam to be representative of humanity in general rather than a specific individual. To assume anything particularly historical like a certain number of people is to miss the entire point and to evade that the story is wrapped in mystery and presented to us in an intelligible way to represent something deeper and mystical and much harder to understand. On this last point almost all the Fathers were united.
If dust is immortal, then you've made God co-essential with creation. Immortality is not created; it is uncreated. God did not create divine nature.
I can agree to disagree on your "one Adam and one Eve" doctrine, but the idea that immortality can be created is heresy and has no support in the Church fathers or the Bible. And this is the crux of your problem Zoxsasi. What this tells me is when you read St. Athanasius "On the Incarnation" you understood nothing from him.
Mina,
You asked me a question: Can God create immortality out of dust? I said yes.
It was a trick question??
You are just playing with words???
I'm tired man. I just want to know your interpretation of salvation without 1 Adam and 1 Eve. Why did Christ die for?? FOR WHAT REASON?
I spent 5+ pages answering your questions. I think it is common courtesy for you to do the same for me, to answer my questions. If you believe in literalist dust theology, you have to be prepared to give me a cogent understanding of this belief. So far, according to you, God can create immortality, which I think is a heretical answer. It is not a trick question. You have to understand why you believe what you believe first. The more I explain, the more you seem confused. So I think it is better that I ask you what you believe.
I'm tired too, but if you're not prepared to answer my question, then take a break. Let someone else answer them for you. Or you can continue with me in PM, which you refused to do thus far.
I think there's quite a bit of misunderstanding here on such a forum. Voice chat would have been better.
When I said "God can create immortality" - i meant that He could give us the gift of immortality - by virtue of His Gift. That's all. Whether I use the term "create", "make" or "cause" - for me, the end result is the same: God gave Man the GIFT of immortality. Man disobeyed God and lost this gift of immortality with the consequences attached to it.
All well and good; but this makes no sense with a many-adam-many-eve scenario.
Why? Because we are taught we INHERIT a corrupt nature. We inherit the consequences of a corrupt nature. It means that if Adam didnt exist as a person, then what did we inherit from him? NOTHING. He didnt exist (according to evolution).
I'm just paraphrasing Fr Peter Farrington. I just repeated what he told us about the fall of man.
Don't ask me anymore as I'm not so knowledgeable. Having said that, I think what I believe is basically what most Coptic Christians uphold as their faith.
Can you tell me now how or why Christ became man and died? Man was already dying anyway. Apparently, when this evolved ape had ripened, God gave him the gift of eternal life through union with Him with the Holy Spirit.
There are one of two choices. Either that nature of the gift of immortality is created or it is uncreated. If you're giving me the "I don't know", then why you do get bothered when I tell you "I don't know" in my answers?
There are one of two choices. Either that nature of the gift of immortality is created or it is uncreated. If you're giving me the "I don't know", then why you do get bothered when I tell you "I don't know" in my answers?
@Zoxsasi....Please answer minasoliman in pm. please do not comment on this discussion till you are set with minasoliman....in pm.
Comments
there are two ways to argue.
One is to think you're right and you have to disprove everyone else who disagrees which also means you have to stop listening to others.
The other way is to ask a question, give your understanding on the topic, listen to others and be willing to change your mind if others present clear arguments.
So far you have been doing the first way or arguing. You are not presenting any real challenges to what minasoliman has explained to you, in fact your answers show that you don't adequately understand what he is saying. You keep bringing up the same already answered objections.
Lastly, stop putting God in a box and saying He had to create like this or that. Understand that God is a mystery and when we make Him subject to our specific interpretation of a text we are not treating Him as mystery.
God Bless
I'm very calm and I am careful not repeating things I already wrote, since the article says nothing new and I already refuted it. I'm trying now to understand you. You have not really answered my questions. You are vague in your answers. Please explain them. I want to understand dust theology.
We have been arguing about this topic and i see no end to it.....so how about we be concise and objective in everything we say from now on.....8 pages people!!!!!
Can God create immortality out of dust?
I can agree to disagree on your "one Adam and one Eve" doctrine, but the idea that immortality can be created is heresy and has no support in the Church fathers or the Bible. And this is the crux of your problem Zoxsasi. What this tells me is when you read St. Athanasius "On the Incarnation" you understood nothing from him.
Mina,
You asked me a question: Can God create immortality out of dust? I said yes.
It was a trick question??
You are just playing with words???
I'm tired man. I just want to know your interpretation of salvation without 1 Adam and 1 Eve. Why did Christ die for?? FOR WHAT REASON?