› ›

Where to?

Unknown
edited December 1969 in Faith Issues
Hello,

The Theory of Evolution seems to hold true. There have been many attempts to debunk it, such as Creation Ministries, Don Waller, and books like "Case for the Creator." They all seem to be written by foolish people, who's arguments are either incomplete, out-dated, or, as is the case in Creation Ministries, they seem to twist the truth. My question now is where to? If evolution is true, and evolution claims that there is no guiding force, and that everything is random, where does the biblical creation story come in? If the biblical story is false, then what reason is there in the belief in the bible?

Where does religion show any shred of truth where evolution is so strong an opponent. As Christians, it is foolishness to deny science. Religion is day by day seemingly becoming against science rather than above it.

Where to?

ReturnOrthodoxy

«1

Comments

  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    The biblical creation account explains 'who' and 'what'. It is silent on 'how'. So it's not something you really need to trouble yourself with. Some will choose to accept evolution, others will not. If you choose to believe in evolution, that's cool. If not, that's cool too. In the end, we should focus on Christ and working out our own salvation. That is all that matters.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Scripture is NOT a science textbook. I don't understand when people will finally figure that out.
  • Unknown
    Hey Cephas,

    I was desperately hoping you would respond. Don't get me wrong. I am still a believer. I simply want to understand. I want to be wiser than just believe without any reason.
    Are you saying that we can reconcile evolution and the bible? I know you as the guy with the sources, so do you mind posting some kind of source about how to reconcile the two? I want you to read this. Now, as much as I love H.G., this seems to be like utter non-sense to me. I especially dislike his answer as to whether God could have used evolution to create.

    Answer quick. Biboboy, Andrew, PeterA, Zoxasi, Dzheremi, TITL, LiD: you guys are always on this site, and you usually have a lot of good to add. I hope you guys pass this by, and give me something to work with.

    Thanks alot.

    ReturnOrthodoxy
  • TITLTITL
    We don't dispute the Bible or try to prove it.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    Here's an article I've posted once before that I think may be a start for you. I'll try to find other references later.

    Science and Religion (part 1)
    by Dr. Reda Fayek

    Introduction

    New discoveries in science in general, and in physics, cosmology and biology in particular, make the universe more explainable, as well as more amazing. Does this undermine our religious faith or reinforce it? The works of modern science, taken one by one, seem enough to dampen a person's hope for higher meanings. However, stepping back and looking at the big picture, we can observe a pattern that suggests that there is more to this universe than meets the eye, something authentically divine about how it all fits together.

    Science says that the human being is the result of a process called evolution, which took hundreds of thousands of years! It claims that the universe is the result of a "Big Bang" of matter/energy that occurred millions of years ago.... The Bible, the word of God, says that God created the world in seven days. How can we reconcile these two, seemingly, contradictory positions?

    The above is just an example of the kind of questions that might face us as we probe exciting fields of study, such as biology or astrophysics. Also, we might be faced with questions of this nature when we talk to our peers or colleagues. Christianity teaches us to be "prepared" to defend our beliefs, to be "ready" to explain our convictions.

    Some of the very relevant questions are:

    1. Is the Bible a "scientific" book?

    2. How can we explain the seemingly unscientific accounts in the Bible?

    3. Should we refrain from pursuing research which conflicts with the Bible?

    4. Does "creation" imply that "evolution" did not occur?

    5. What is the significance of Adam being created in the "Image of God"?

    6. Does science support or contradict religion?

    7. Would a unified theory of physics help?

    8. Does religion explain everything in this world? Does science explain everything?

    9. Do science and religion have to compete?

    We shall now proceed to examine each of these questions.

    1. Is the Bible a "scientific" book?

    The Bible is the word of God spoken by His Holy Spirit to His servants. Not only that, but it is the truth, Jesus said, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17) Additionally, the word of God is revealed to all people, from all ages and until eternity. Jesus again says, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33)

    As such, although it is addressed to all people, it is inconceivable for it to be all the books. If it were a scientific book (as we currently understand those terms), it would be incomprehensible to the average people who by and large outnumber scientists. However, since it is true, it bears in its words the scientific accuracy which, when simplified for our understanding, may not lend itself to today's sciences.

    When a scientist writes an article for publication in a scientific journal he/she has to use a scholarly language and terminology that would be simply incomprehensible for people outside his/her field. The same scientist, if asked to write about the same topic in a popular newspaper or magazine might use much simpler terms to explain the basic concepts. He/she might have to resort to the use of analogies and parallels from other domains of knowledge to make the concepts easier to understand, despite the fact that these might not be completely accurate or scientifically sound.

    2. How can we explain the seemingly unscientific accounts in the Bible?

    Many of the accounts in the Bible, in particular concerning creation, can be thought of as simplifications of processes that are incomprehensible to humans __ or, to say the least to the non_scientist. When the Bible speaks about "one day" in Genesis 1, it is merely trying to simplify the notion of an "epoch" that might span millions of years! The proof of that is simple. The "day" we know is determined by the "sunrise" and "sunset", which result from the rotation of the earth around its axis, and around the sun. In Genesis, however, the word "day" was used even before the creation of the sun (in day 4).

    There seems to be a persistent misconception among many that "because the Big Bang (for instance) was not mentioned in the Bible" then either the Bible is wrong or the Big Bang theory is wrong. The question that poses itself is simply: Why do some assume that it is either God or the Big Bang? Is not God capable of creating the universe "through" the Big Bang? The Bible tells us that God created heaven and earth. It does not tell us "how" God managed to create our universe __ after all, if it did we would have not understood it anyway!

    Even if the Big Bang succeeds in explaining phenomena like "the expanding universe" and others, it still relies on the existence of a "seed matter or energy" and on the existence of "governing principles and laws". Who brought this seed matter or energy into being? Who established these governing principles and laws? These are but two questions that the Big Bang cannot even hope to explain. It is questions like these that underscore the necessity of a creation that brings about something (whether matter or axioms) from nothing.

    Some people can even go to argue that it was indeed the Big Bang that God meant when He says: "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." (Job 38:4_7) The echoes of the Big Bang that scientists have recently recorded may be but the echoes of that song of joy which all the angels chanted at the creation of the seed matter of the universe.

    A good parallel that would help clarify this point can be borrowed from computers __ a technology that has been continually changing the face of the world for the last few decades. Computers operate through programs (software) that give detailed instructions to the computer circuits (hardware). By following these detailed instructions, computers can do wonders! But who should really get the credit for these wonders? Is it the hardware and software? or is it the "creative mind" that invented both the computer hardware and software program? It is definitely the latter. Any other conclusion would be completely unfair to the "intelligent being" who created the machine and invented the program, which when executed solved the problem. In this analogy, one can think of the "seed matter" as the computer hardware and the "governing principles and physical laws" as the computer software.

    Discoveries in evolutionary biology or astrophysical theories should never diminish our belief that God created the universe because all these discoveries and theories (if true) represent nothing but an infinitesimal droplet of knowledge about the superb plan of the Pantocrator __ the architect of the universe. Rather than diminishing our belief that God created the universe, such theories and discoveries should bring us closer to God as we admire the beauty of His plan (or "program" if you want to stick to the computer analogy) for creation.

    3. Should we refrain from pursuing research which conflicts with the Bible?

    If God created in us the brain and intelligence to think and make discoveries and theories about the universe where we live, then it should not be wrong to think "scientifically". However, in doing so, one should be careful not to violate the spirit of Christianity (e.g., misuse of genetic engineering for abusive manipulation of hormones, misuse of nuclear energy for destructive purposes, misuse of astronomy for astrology, etc.)

    There is nothing wrong with studying evolutionary biology or conducting research in astrophysics as long as we are not doing so to prove (say) that God does not exist. On the contrary, when we approach such marvelous subjects, we should praise the Lord for the beauty of His creation and for the intelligence He created in us.

    God gifted us with our mind and science, and expects us to use our God_given faculties without spiritual laziness, so that we might arrive at the true comprehension of His word. It is written in the Holy Scripture that God "hath given men science that He might be glorified in His marvelous works" (Wisdom of Sirach 38:6). God, the Creator of the universe, can never be against learning the laws of what he has created.

    4. Does "creation" imply that "evolution" did not occur?

    The fact of evolution is one thing; theories explaining how evolution took place are quite another. Often people confuse the two and speak of both as if they were one. Life on earth climbed by steps from inferior creatures to superior ones. This is evolution, and this is fact. This Moses presents in Chapter 1 of Genesis. However, Genesis is neither a manual on Astronomy nor a textbook on Zoology.

    Genesis teaches us that God gave to creation a development, in time, from the simple to the complex, from the inferior to the superior, that He did not create the world instantaneously but in six consecutive eras of perfecting, the most perfect being those he created the last day.

    The six "days" were not needed by God but were needed by creation itself. Time was a part of creation __ its fourth dimension. Creation cannot be conceived without time and time needs movement and development. However, we have examples of God's instantaneous creation (eyes for the man born blind, John 9:1_41) and instantaneous destruction (withered fig tree, Matthew 21:18_22).

    Therefore, we should be open to the possibility that evolution is the process God the Creator may have used to bring life and mind into being. If one were asked to make an abridgment of all contemporary scientific knowledge concerning the history of creation, in one page only, could anything better the first page of Holy Scripture?

    Source
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    Science and Religion (part 2)
    by Dr. Reda Fayek

    5. What is the significance of Adam being created in the "Image of God"?

    St. Seraphim of Sarov (a Russian saint) said, 150 years ago, about Adam:

    "Many explain that when it says in the Bible, `God breathed the breath of life into the face of Adam the first created, who was created by Him from the dust of the earth,' it must mean that until then there was neither human soul nor spirit in Adam, but only the flesh created from the dust of the earth.... Adam was not created dead, but as an active being like all the other creatures of God living on earth [including other homo sapiens]. The point is that if the Lord God had not breathed afterwards into his face this breath of life (the grace of our Lord the Holy Spirit), Adam would have remained without having within him the Holy Spirit Who raised him to Godlike dignity... he would have been just like all the other creatures... but "Adam became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7), that is, completely and in every way like God, and like Him, forever immortal."

    Adam was not created as a clay statue without life, or as a body without a soul. The breath of God has no biological meaning, but is an uncreated immortal energy given to him to seal his connection with God.

    6. Does science support or contradict religion?

    We should not reduce science to religion, nor vice versa. They are not interchangeable; they both complement our admiration of God the Creator. Relying on our incomplete scientific knowledge and using it to interpret religious beliefs may lead to unjustified contradictions. Therefore, we should distinguish between the belief in the Bible and its interpretation. Since the Bible is not a scientific book (and more importantly, the Bible never claims to be a scientific book!), it is important to make this distinction.

    In history, church leaders (especially from the Roman Catholic Church) interpreted the Bible as a scientific book. This led to several (now confirmed) mistakes in interpretation. Galileo Galilei was accused in 1616 by the Vatican, and put under house arrest in 1633, because he supported the idea that the earth revolves around the sun (and that it is not the centre of the universe). He contended that the Scriptures cannot err, but are often misunderstood. More than a millennium before Galileo, St. Augustine had taught that if the Bible seems to conflict with "clear and certain reasoning", then the Scriptures obviously need re-interpretation. We cannot, using our narrow understanding and limited knowledge, explain the fullness of God's ways to bring the Creation into being.

    7. Would a unified theory of physics help?

    An intriguing observation that has bubbled up from physics is that the universe seems calibrated for life's existence. If the force of gravity were pushed upward a bit, stars would burn out faster, leaving little time for life to evolve on the planets circling them. If the relative masses of protons and neutrons were changed by a hair, stars might never be born, since the hydrogen they eat would not exist. If, at the Big Bang, some basic numbers had been jiggled, matter and energy would never have coagulated into galaxies, stars, planets or any other platforms stable enough for life as we know it. And so on. Scientists (especially physicists) suspect that there is indeed a law that if known would make life's origin less baffling. Atheists would go as far as to say that such a law would play the role formerly assigned to the Creator. However, even such a law would be evidence of God the Creator and architect of this universe. Certainly, a universe predisposed to produce life seems a more likely product of divine design than a universe in which life was a fluke.

    Pure science can provide us with a physics theory which gives a strictly material account of life's origin (through its self_organization), and another biological theory which gives a strictly material account of life's evolution. Each of these theories, taken separately, are used by atheists to contradict creation. But now place these two accounts alongside modern physics, and look at the big picture: A universe all but destined to create platforms for life; a still unknown but increasingly suspected physical law that all but destined some of these platforms to be populated by little living specks; an evolutionary process that was almost destined, given enough time, to turn those specks into thinking, wondering, self_aware beings. Suddenly, the universe seems almost destined to have not only intelligent life, but intelligent meaningful life with beings like us. With little effort we can see the hand of God in all that. The impression of design is overwhelming.

    Stephen W. Hawking, in A Brief History of Time, says:

    "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not only just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

    8. Does religion explain everything in this world? Does science explain everything?

    Some scientists believe in a clock-maker God; he had built the universe, set its laws, wound it up, and let it run. Assuming that with the advances in science, more of these laws become comprehensible to us, they say that we could sense God through reason just by inspecting his handiwork the universe and its laws. This approach is in many ways well suited, as religion goes, to an era as scientific as this one.

    However, this universe does not seem to work as predictably as a clock, a universe whose innermost workings may not be fathomable. The deeper our insight, the more baffling things become (e.g., uncertainty principle). The great physicist Richard Feynman addressed his audience saying, "Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, `But how can it be like that?' . Nobody knows how it can be like that." Sir Isaac Newton, said, "In science we resemble children collecting a few pebbles at the beach of knowledge, while the ocean of the unknown unfolds itself in front of us."

    "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8,9)

    Furthermore, feelings and subjective experiences have no strictly scientific explanations, scientists admit, but could still have a "metaphysical" one. The idea that there might be any laws beyond the perceivable world, anything opaque to scientific inquiry is a sign that science's brash youth, when no mystery seemed beyond experimental conquest, is ending. The doctrine of scientific determinism suggested by the Marquis de Laplace (that there exists a set of scientific laws that would allow us to predict everything that would happen in the universe, if we knew the complete state of the universe at one time) (beginning of the 19th century) started to be abandoned with Max Plank's quantum theory (1900) and Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (1926). With respect for metaphysics comes respect for an idea central to religion: the unknowable, "for we know in part" (I Corinthians 13:9). Now, how can atheists, those who confidently deny God, admit that they cannot peer behind the curtain, but still affirm that there is nothing there?

    It becomes clear now that the ultimate questions remain unanswered, that science may be unable to answer them, and yet that science does help us mull them over, by illuminating the epic trajectory of cosmic and biological evolution on whose end we sit. The focus of the question then shifts from "creation versus evolution" to "purpose versus accident". But purpose, like origin, is a point where the wisdom of empirical science ends and the quest for religious faith begins.

    9. Do science and religion have to compete?

    Let us take a look at Fernand Crombette and his work, as an example of a Christian attitude and behavior. To synthesize the global work of Fer nand Crombette is an almost impossible task, considering the extent of the subjects he tackled. His entire work is composed of 43 volumes, consisting of about 16,000 pages and 2 atlas maps. All his work was realized in 25 to 30 years, between 1936 and 1966.

    Fernand Crombette was pensioned off in 1937 at the age of 57. It was a providential circumstance that allowed him to realize this huge task: his daughter, a student in fine arts, was asked to sketch out a picture representing The Saint Women at the Grave. Fernand Crombette advised her to make it a recreation of history for which he would gather documentation. While doing so, he was struck by this verse: "For God is my King of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth." (Psalm 74:12) If the Bible is right, he reasoned, Jerusalem, and more specifically Calvary, should be in the centre of the earth.

    Fernand Crombette is tempted by this thesis and he gets down to work. He tries to obtain a joining of the continents, because a centre cannot be conceived without one single primitive continent (in which ancient civilizations believed). He goes to institutes and universities, consults books, studies the sea_bed and discovers in it the original place of continents, and he dates back their dislocation to the time of the Flood. Before him, Wegner had tackled the question of the continental drift, but while the latter believed it happened slowly, Fernand Crombette thinks it happened in 90 days.

    To reconstitute the original face of the earth, Fernand Crombette had to go down to the 2000 metre mark below ground, where the joining would be real. It should be mentioned that Fernand Crombette had recourse to the thesis of the philosopher Kant who proposed that the earth, at its origins, was surrounded by a beautiful aqueous ring that maintained the same temperature on the surface of the whole globe. The Bible gives credence to this when it says, "And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so." (Genesis 1:7)

    The universal Flood, which is believed to be caused by the fall of this mass of water, reduced the dry land to 29% of the total surface of the globe, and that is how the average depth of the seas reached 4000 metres. The ring contained half of the water of the seas that now surround the dry land. He thus, was able to find the location of the famous Atlantis, so rapidly engulfed, and the dimensions of which correspond to the ones given by Plato. These joining allowed him also to locate the ancient Scythic Ocean and the famous le de Pques. When his work was done, he discovered, in the work of an ancient author, the declaration that the dry land occupied, primitively, about 5/7 of the inhabited hemisphere. Immediately, he verifies if his information corresponds to the author's and he finds they are almost identical.

    He had, previously come across a book of Father Placet, who wrote in 1668: "Where it is proved that, before the Flood, there were no islands and that America was not separated from the rest of the world." Thus Fernand Crombette received, by this double account, the confirmation of his own thesis, which scientists and specialists can verify by themselves.

    Actually, in the sea_bed are engraved the routes that the present different continents took from their initial sites. Wegner's thesis of a very slow drift is not supported any more. The only thing that is accepted is the idea of an initial single continent. Fernand Crombette believes the drift happened in 90 days, during the Flood.

    Let us have a look at an extract of his book Essay of a Divine geography, and in particular the chapter "Joining between America and Africa",

    "For the terminal part of South America to imprint its form in the oceanic sea_bed, the block must have been detached of its place in a relatively rapid movement, more rapid than the ascent of the magma. This way, the magma was solidified by the water before completing its upward movement. Therefore, there is no question of the drift being as slow as 1 mm per day. We are dealing here with an abrupt movement that happened, not during 3,000,000 years as Wegner imagines, but within 90 days as the Bible says and as a result of a huge catastrophe. Reverend Father Placet told us what it was: The universal Flood."

    When Fernand Crombette had finished his work on the continents' joining, Jerusalem was found to be exactly in the centre of the primitive single continent, which would have had the shape of an eight petal flower. In fact, the name of the earth in the Coptic language is "Hrs" which means "like a lovely blossomed flower."

    Editor's Notes

    Our Agpeya, the Coptic book of prayers, written centuries before Fernand Crombette's research, re-iterates the fact that Calvary is situated in the centre of the earth. In the "verses of sext", read following the Gospel of the Sixth hour, we read, "Thou hast wrought salvation in the midst of the earth, O Christ our God, when Thou didst stretch forth Thine holy hands upon the Cross."

    Source
  • Unknown
    [quote author=TITL link=topic=12585.msg147739#msg147739 date=1321749984]
    We don't dispute the Bible or try to prove it.


    Substitute "bible" in what you just said with "quran", "book of Moroni" , and tell me why I should expect anyone not born into Christianity to accept it.

    ReturnOrthodoxy
  • TITLTITL
    I wouldn't expect them to accept it. But you said you are a believer, so why do I have to substitute "Bible"?

    Nonbelievers usually don't care to hear any Bible related proof of anything (hence why they are nonbelievers).
  • TITLTITL
    Did some research...


    Evolution & Orthodoxy by Fr. John Matusiak:

    "I might begin by stating that, if by evolution one is referring to the theories and teachings of Charles Darwin, the Orthodox Church surely does not subscribe to evolution in any manner. Orthodoxy firmly believes that God is the Creator of all things and that human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, are unique among all created beings. At the same time Orthodoxy is not literalist in its understanding of the accounts of creation in Genesis, and I have encountered writings by Orthodox Christians which attempt to balance the creation accounts with a certain ongoing -- evolutionary, if you will -- process which, on the one hand, affirms that while humans may have evolved physically under the direction and guidance and plan of the Creator, their souls could not have evolved any more than the powers of reasoning, speaking, or the ability to act creatively could have simply evolved. In such a scenario the Creator intervened by breathing His Spirit into man and giving him life, as stated in Genesis. Such thinking, however, while admitting the possibility that the Creator guided a process of physical evolution, is not identical with the theories of Charles Darwin, which in my limited understanding implies that man's soul also evolved and denies the active participation on the part of the Creator. This poses a variety of questions and problems beyond the scope of your original question.

    In short, then, Orthodoxy absolutely affirms that God is the Creator and Author of all things, that He is actively engaged with His creation, and that He desires to restore His creation to full communion with Himself through the saving death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This, unlike Darwinism, is not a matter of ideology but, rather, a matter of theology.

    Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All.

    "
    http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/Evolution-and-Orthodoxy.html

    The first Darwinist. Archelaus writes:

    And with regard to animals, he affirms that the earth, being originally fire in its lower part, where the heat and cold were intermingled, both the rest of animals made their appearance, numerous and dissimilar,all having the same food, being nourished from mud; and their existence was of short duration, but afterwards also generation from one another arose unto them; and men were separated from the rest (of the animal creation), and they appointed rulers, and laws, and arts, and cities, and the rest. And he asserts that mind is innate in all animals alike; for that each, according to the difference of their physical constitution, employed (mind), at one time slower, at another faster.

    John of Damascus:

    That man has community alike with inanimate things and animate creatures, weather they are devoid of or possess the faculty of reason. Man, it is to be noted, has community with things inanimate, and participates in the life of unreasoning creatures, and shares in the mental processes of those endowed with reason. For the bond of union between man and inanimate things is the body and its composition out of the four elements


    Blessed Father Seraphim Rose

    St Gregory the Theologian about the Hexameron of St. Basil the great:

    "When I take his Hexameron in my Hand and read it aloud, I am with my Creator, I understand the reason for creation, and I admire my Creator mor than I formerly did when I used sight alone as my teacher."

    From Blessed Father Seraphim Rose;Questions and Answers:


    The creation of Adam and Eve:

    Student: Did God create one man and one woman? Or are Adam and Eve representatives of a particular kind of person or group of persons?

    Fr. Seraphim: He created the whole human nature in one man - the first man, Adam- and out of his flesh took the first woman. From them comes the rest of mankind.

    St:When God created Eve out of the rib of Adam, did He take those qualities that are particular to womankind from Adam, or did He endow her with other, complementary qualities ?

    FrS: We aren't told. He gave her whatever quality He needed to give her, starting from the rib. The rib of man does not produce a woman; therefore, it's a miracle. God took the part from Adam simply to show that the origin of mankind is one.
    The whole  of mankind is already present in the original man. Everyone produced after that-from this one man- has the same nature, the same image of God, which is seen in the soul.

    St:Were the body and the soul of man origianlly meant to be seperate ?

    FrS:No.If Adam had not did, we would not need to talk about body and soul, because the body would itself become refind and soul-like. In the end we would have the state of the spiritual body.

    St:Did God breathe a soul into Eve too ?

    FrS:In whatever way He knows, He gave her the same thing He gave to Adam. We are not told details lik that. The whole is simply a miracle of God.

    St:Why is Christ called the second Adam ?

    FrS: We are the offspring of Adam. Even if Adam had not fallen and the animal  mode of reproduction had not been instituted, there would have been some means of generation from this one man. All men come from Adam, and therefore Adam is like humanity. Adam ruined the whole plan for mankind, but God was "smarter" because He had already "figured out" how to bring this plan about without Adam. Therefore the One through Whom man's original nature is restored, through Whom we have the opportuninty to be in Paradise once more, is called the Second Adam.

    St:Doesn't St. Paul say something about how death came to all through one man?

    FrS: That's right, death came from one man and life come from one Man. Because Adam tasted of the tree, our nature was changed. Therefore when the Holy Fathers speak about natuture of man, sometimes they refer to the fallen, corrupted nature we have as a result of the fall:but sometimes thy (for example Abba Dorotheos) speak about the original nature of mankind, in order to give an image of what we are supposed to get back.
    The RC idea, by the way, is different. They say that in the beginning man was natural, and that he had extra grace which made him supernatural:and then when he fell, he lost the grace and went back to the state he was made in. That is a whole different conception, and it fits inn with evolution, because it sounds as though the whole creation was natural to begin with, and God didn't create everything incorrupt. In the RC view, Adam was not made immortal: he became immortal when God added grace to him. But in the Orthodox view, man was created immortal; his whole nature was different, and when he fell that nature was twisted and changed. We can still get back to the original state, of course, but only if the grace of God through Christ raises us up.

    St:But the state we're striving for is not the state that Adam was in; it's the state that Adam was meant to be in.

    FrS:Right. But the original state is an image of that other state, because it was close to it already.

    St. Gregory Naziazen:

    On New Sunday.

    5. What? Someone will say. Was not the first Sunday, the one after the holy night and the torchlight procession, the feast of dedication? No, my holiday-loving friend; your visions of high merrymaking make you confuse the two days. That one brought salvation; this one is the anniversary of the gift of salvation; that one marks the resurrection from the tomb; this one marks simply the second rebirth. The intention is this: just as it is clear that the original creation was begun on a Sunday since Saturday, which signals the cessation from labor, is the seventh day after it; in the same way, the second creation also begins anew on Sunday, which is the first of the days that follow and the eighth after those that precede it, a day more sublime than the sublime and more wondrous than the wondrous, for it looks to our life in heaven. This is, I think, the meaning of the divine Solomon's enigmatic expression also, to give a portion to seven, that is, to this life, or even to eight, that is, the life to come: he is alluding to our good works on earth and our reinstatement in heaven. And even the great David's Psalms entitled "For the eighth" appear to be hymns for the same day, just as in another psalm that speaks in its title of the dedication of a house, the reference is to this day of dedication. The house is ourselves, we who have been found worthy to be and to be recognized and to become God's temple.

    St. John Chrysostom:

    VOLUME ONE

    HOMILY SIX

    (10) Do you see the wisdom of the Creator? He merely spoke, and this marvellous body came into being, namely, the sun. You see, it calls this light great and says it was brought into existence for governing the day. In other words, the sun renders the day brighter, shedding its rays like flashing lights and day by day revealing its own beauty in full bloom: as soon as it appears at dawn, it awakes the whole human race to the discharge of their respective duties. This beauty the blessed author reveals when he says: "The sun beams, like a bridegroom emerging from his chamber, like a giant in the running of his course; its span extends from one corner of heaven right to the other corner of heaven." Do you see how he revealed to us both the sun's beauty and its speed of movement? That is, in saying, "Its span extends from one corner of heaven right to the other corner of heaven," it indicated to us how in one moment of time it traverses the whole world and scatters its rays from end to end, making its great resources available: it not only supplies heat to the earth but also dries it up, and not only dries it up but enkindles it, and supplies us with many different resources, so marvellous a body is it, quite beyond one's power to describe adequately.
    (11) I mention this to you and sing the praises of this heavenly body so that you may not stop short there, dearly beloved, but proceed further and transfer your admiration to the creator of the heavenly body. After all, the greater the sun is shown to be, so much the more marvellous is the revelation of the Creator.
    (12) Pagan peoples, however, in their wonder and stupor at this heavenly body were unable to look beyond it to praise its creator; instead, they sang its praises and treated it as a deity. Hence the reason for the blessed Paul's saying, "They worshipped and served the creature instead of its creator." What could be more stupid than people failing to recognize the creator from the creature and being caught up in such error as to put creature and artefact on the same level as their creator? So then, foreseeing the inclination of slothful people to error, Sacred Scripture teaches us that the creation of this heavenly body took place three days later, after the growth of all the plants from the earth, after the earth's taking its own form, so that afterwards no one could say that without this force these things would not have been brought forth from the earth. Hence it shows you everything completed before the creation of this body lest you attribute the production of the crops to it instead of to the Creator of all things, the one who said from the beginning, "Let the earth bring forth a crop of vegetation."
    (13) But if they were to say that the sun's virtue also contributes to the ripening of the crops, I would not gainsay them. After all, it's similar to the case of the farmer: in saying he contributes to the processes of the soil, I don't ascribe everything to him: even if thousands of farmers did their best, their efforts would be fruitless unless the One initiating the process through his own design from the beginning willed to put in train the very creation of the crops. In exactly the same way, I say, even if after the farmer's work there is assistance from the work of the sun, and the moon and the mildness of the climate, this would likewise be to no effect unless the hand from above did not play its part; once, however, this mighty hand is ready, the work of the elements makes its most efficacious contribution.
    (14) Give close attention to this so as to bridle those still intent on deceiving themselves, and have nothing to do with assigning to creatures the honor due to the Creator. Accordingly, Sacred Scripture not only shows us the sun's beauty, and immensity and usefulness in the words, "It beams like a bridegroom, like a giant in running its course," but also its limitations and powerlessness: listen to what it says elsewhere, "What could provide more light than the sun? Yet even it fails." Don't be deceived by appearances, it tells us: unless the Creator willed so to direct, it would disappear as though it had never existed. If pagan peoples had understood this, they would not have fallen victim to such deception, but would properly have seen that from contemplation of created things one should move on to the Creator. Accordingly, he created it on the fourth day lest you think it is the cause of the day. In other words, what we said about the plants we will say also about the day, namely, that three days occurred before the creation of the sun. The Lord wanted to make daylight more brilliant by means of this heavenly body also- something we would say is true in the case of the lesser light as well, by which I mean the moon; after all, three nights occurred before its creation. Still, once created, the moon makes its own contribution, banishing the gloom of the night and accomplishing (you could almost say) the same things the sun does in other respects.


    St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Chapter 7:

    Concerning light, fire, the luminaries, sun, moon and stars.

    The course which the Creator appointed for them to run is unceasing and remaineth fixed as He established them. For the divine David says, The moon and the stars which Thou establishedst, and by the word 'establishedst,' he referred to the fixity and unchangeableness of the order and series granted to them by God. For He appointed them for seasons, and signs, and days and years. It is through the Sun that the four seasons are brought about. And the first of these is spring: for in it God created all things, and even down to the present time its presence is evidenced by the bursting of the flowers into bud, and this is the equinoctial period, since day and night each consist of twelve hours. It is caused by the sun rising in the middle, and is mild and increases the blood, and is warm and moist, and holds a position midway between winter and summer, being warmer and drier than winter, but colder and moister than summer. This season lasts from March 21st till June 24th. Next, when the rising of the sun moves towards more northerly parts, the season of summer succeeds, which has a place midway between spring and autumn, combining the warmth of spring with the dryness of autumn: for it is dry and warm, and increases the yellow bile. In it falls the longest day, which has fifteen hours, and the shortest night of all, having only nine hours. This season lasts from June 24th till September 25th. Then when the sun again returns to the middle, autumn takes the place of summer. It has a medium amount of cold and heat, dryness and moisture, and holds a place midway between summer and winter, combining the dryness of summer with the cold of winter. For it is cold and dry, and increases the black bile. This season, again, is equinoctial, both day and night consisting of twelve hours, and it lasts from September 25th till December 25th. And when the rising of the sun sinks to its smallest and lowest point, i.e. the south, winter is reached, with its cold and moisture. It occupies a place midway between autumn and spring, combining the cold of autumn and the moisture of spring. In it falls the shortest day, which has only nine hours, and the longest night, which has fifteen: and it lasts from December 25th till March 21st. For the Creator made this wise provision that we should not pass from the extreme of cold, or heat, or dryness, or moisture, to the opposite extreme, and thus incur grievous maladies. For reason itself teaches us the danger of sudden changes.

    St. Ambrose of Milan, (PL 14.128):


    ... the year, has the stamp of a world coming to birth, as the splendor of the springtime shines forth all the more clearly because of the winter's ice and darkness now past. The shape of the circles of years to come has been given form by the first dawn of the world. Based on that precedent, the succession of years would tend to arise, and at the commencement of each year new seedlings would be produced, as the Lord God has said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb and such as may seed, and the fruit tree, yielding fruit after its kind. And immediately the earth produced the green herb and the fruit-bearing tree (Gen. 1:11). By this very fact both the constant mildness of divine Providence and the speed in which the earth germinates favor for us the hypothesis of a vernal period. For, although it was in the power of God to ordain creation at any time whatsoever and for earthly nature to obey, so that amid winter's ice and frost earth might bear and produce fruits under the fostering hand of His celestial power, He refrained. It was not in His eternal plan that the land held fast in the rigid bonds of frost should suddenly be released to bear fruits and that blooming plants should mingle with frosts unsightly.

    Wherefore, in order to show that the creation of the world took place in the spring, Scripture says: This month shall be to you the beginning of months, it is for you the first in the months of the year (Ex. 12:2), calling the first month the springtime. It was fitting that the beginning of the year be the beginning of generation and that generation itself be fostered by the gentler breezes. The tender germs of matter would be unable to endure exposure to the bitter cold of winter or to the torrid heat of summer.

    At the same time, one may note, since it belongs here by right, that the entrance into this generation and into this way of life seems to have occurred at the time when the regular transition from this generation to regeneration takes place.

    The sons of Israel left Egypt in the season of spring and passed through the sea, being baptized in the cloud and in the sea (I Cor. 10:1), as the Apostle said. At that time each year the Pasch of Jesus Christ is celebrated, that is to say, the passing over from vices to virtues, from the desires of the flesh to grace and sobriety of mind, from the unleavened bread of malice and wickedness to truth and sincerity (1 Cor. 5:. Accordingly, the regenerated are thus addressed: This month shall be to you the beginning of months; it is for you the first in the months of the year (Ex. 12:2)

  • TITLTITL

    Against a Literal Six-day Creation


    Origen
    And since he makes the statements about the “days of creation” ground of accusation,—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, and sun, and moon, and stars, and some of them after the creation of these,—we shall only make this observation, that Moses must then have forgotten that he had said a little before, “that in six days the creation of the world had been finished,” and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he subjoins to these words the following:  “This is the book of the creation of man, in the day when God made the heaven and the earth!”  But it is not in the least credible, that after what he had said respecting the six days, Moses should immediately add, without a special meaning, the words, “in the day that God made the heavens and the earth;” and if any one thinks that these words may be referred to the statement, “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth,” let him observe that before the words, “Let there be light, and there was light,” and these, “God called the light day,” it has been stated that “in the beginning God made the heaven and the earth.”
    But after this investigation of his assertions, as if his object were to swell his book by many words, he repeats, in different language, the same charges which we have examined a little ago, saying:  “By far the most silly thing is the distribution of the creation of the world over certain days, before days existed:  for, as the heaven was not yet created, nor the foundation of the earth yet laid, nor the sun yet revolving, how could there be days?”  Now, what difference is there between these words and the following:  “Moreover, taking and looking at these things from the beginning, would it not be absurd in the first and greatest God to issue the command, Let this (first thing) come into existence, and this second thing, and this (third); and after accomplishing so much on the first day, to do so much more again on the second, and third, and fourth, and fifth, and sixth?”  We answered to the best of our ability this objection to God’s “commanding this first, second, and third thing to be created,” when we quoted the words, “He said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;” remarking that the immediate Creator, and, as it were, very Maker of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father of the Word, by commanding His own Son—the Word—to create the world, is primarily Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and quoted the words: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.”
    (Celsus, 6.50, 60)

    St. Cyprian of Carthage
    ““As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand of years, as the seven spirits and seven angels which stand and go in and out before the face of God, and the seven-branched lamp in the tabernacle of witness, and the seven golden candlesticks in the Apocalypse, and the seven columns in Solomon upon which Wisdom built her house l so here also the number seven of the brethren, embracing, in the quantity of their number, the seven churches, as likewise in the first book of Kings we read that the barren hath borne seven”
    (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250])

    St Clement of Alexandria
    ““That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated, and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: "This is the book of the generation: also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth." For the expression "when they were created" intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression "in the day that God made," that is, in and by which God made "all things," and "without which not even one thing was made," points out the activity exerted by the Son. As David says, "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice in it; " that is, in consequence of the knowledge imparted by Him, let us celebrate the divine festival; for the Word that throws light on things hidden, and by whom each created thing came into life and being, is called day. “
    (Miscellanies 6.16 [208 AD])

    St. Augustine
    “But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world's creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!”
    (City of God 11:6 [AD 419])

    Irenaeus
    "And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since ‘a day of the Lord is a thousand years,’ he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin" (Against Heresies 5:23:2 [A.D. 189]).

    A couple of links:
    http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/evolution_kuraev.htm
  • Unknown
    Thank you very much Cephas and TITL. Please pray for me. This is a difficult trial. I cannot get thoughts of doubt and angst about the whole thing out of my head. Please pray for me that one day, I won't need to question or look. Pray for my weakness.

    ReturnOrthodoxy
  • Mansour89
    Hi ReturnOrthodoxy,

    I didn't read all the posts, but if you're interested in doing a little bit more reading with regards to this topic, I would suggest reading Fr. Athanasius Iskander's book titled, "Creation". It can be found here:
    http://www.stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/content/books/creation.pdf

    If you have any questions, just fire him an email. He's pretty good with responding. All the best to you.

    Pray for me.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    Dear brother,

    I had similar doubts several years ago. A friend turned me to a book called Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson. READ IT, PLEASE! (Check your library).

    I know you don't want to read another book and want a simple answer. But if you really want to turn the chapter (pun intended) on these doubts, you will need to put in some effort.

    Understand that religion and science are not in conflict. This is how the evil one works: He takes what God has given us as a gift to understand and love Him (e.g. science), and uses it to the opposite effect - to cause confusion and doubt.

  • andrew8345andrew8345
    [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=12585.msg147735#msg147735 date=1321746820]
    Hello,

    The Theory of Evolution seems to hold true.

    Really? There are dozens of variations of the theory of Evolution. Which one are you talking about?

    There have been many attempts to debunk it, such as Creation Ministries, Don Waller, and books like "Case for the Creator." They all seem to be written by foolish people, who's arguments are either incomplete, out-dated, or, as is the case in Creation Ministries, they seem to twist the truth.

    Have you read all these books? (I haven't). Why do you so quickly discard them? Even if they are rubbish, surely there are better books and research putting Evolution into doubt (e.g. the book I recommended previously).

    My question now is where to? If evolution is true, and evolution claims that there is no guiding force, and that everything is random, where does the biblical creation story come in?

    Do you realize how silly and ridiculous it is to say that there is no order to the universe and everything is random, yet somehow evolution brought us to the amazing state we are in today through impossible mutations. If everything is random, everything has no purpose. But we can see that everything has a purpose.

    If the biblical story is false, then what reason is there in the belief in the bible?

    There isn't a reason. 

    Where does religion show any shred of truth where evolution is so strong an opponent. As Christians, it is foolishness to deny science. Religion is day by day seemingly becoming against science rather than above it.

    Where to?

    ReturnOrthodoxy

    Science is not an opponent to religion! Some may use it for this purpose but all science does is explain what we observe and know. We know that God created the world.
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    Try listening to these from Ancient faith radio:

    God and Science pt. 1 (Clark Carlton)
    God and Science pt. 2

    Darwin and Christianity pt. 1/17 (Fr. Thomas Hopko)

    I recommend listening to some of these podcasts. . .they are usually very good.

  • ashsofennoub
    .
  • Unknown
    Thank you very much Andrew for your links and for your encouragement. I pray that when this trial is overcome, I will grow stronger. I will do as you said, and put in the effort.

    Please pray for me.

    ReturnOrthodoxy
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    Begin by listening to the podcasts I linked. I just listened to the "God and Science" recordings and found them edifying. May God reveal His wonders to you. 
  • Abanoub737
    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

    Just a recommendations - really great movie:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=688111496234161611
  • TITLTITL
    Something funny I read once:

    "[center]Atheism[/center]

    The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

    Makes perfect sense."
  • George_Mina_Awad
    That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. -1 Peter 1:17

    When your faith is tested, it is for you to come out of it with a faith stronger than ever.

    The verse Abanoub provided is good too. It's citing faith as evidence. Because the Holy Spirit opens our heart to it, even when we can't necessarily explain it. I know there are plenty of objections against my faith, but I also know that the things I feel and the things I have seen are not haphazard. I know that my body is made up of cells, but I also know that I have a self that is independent of these cells and is greater than the sum of my parts. And so I believe that my existence is due to more than mere chance. I firmly believe that not everything can be attributed to chance.

    Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. - John 20:29

    Because,

    For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. -Romans 2:14-16

    I probably don't have the brain capacity to scrutinize every piece of the theory of evolution, but this is what I know, and I know this to be absolute truth.
  • servant33servant33
    [quote author=TITL link=topic=12585.msg147794#msg147794 date=1321826905]
    Something funny I read once:

    "[center]Atheism[/center]

    The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

    Makes perfect sense."


    Haha yep, that pretty much sums it up!
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    [quote author=servant33 link=topic=12585.msg147805#msg147805 date=1321847642]
    [quote author=TITL link=topic=12585.msg147794#msg147794 date=1321826905]
    Something funny I read once:

    "[center]Atheism[/center]

    The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

    Makes perfect sense."


    Haha yep, that pretty much sums it up!


    *facepalm*
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    The atheist rant quoted here is complete nonsense. Let's not combat the heresy of evolution with the opposite heresy of atheism. The sarcastic atheism quote tries to openly discredit evolution and at the same time covertly discrediting belief in God. Just look at the phrase "for no reason whatsoever". This is an attack against the Pantocrator. God is the reason and source of everything. God "rearranged everything" in Genesis 1 so everything would be good. The dinosaur crack is classical language from the Atheist's argument against God.

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Regarding science, let's look at 1 Cor 2, "But we speak God’s secret wisdom that has been hidden from everyone until now...The Spirit knows all things. The Spirit even knows the deep secrets of God. It is like this: No one knows the thoughts that another person has. Only the person’s spirit that lives inside knows those thoughts. It is the same with God. No one knows God’s thoughts except God’s Spirit...When we say this, we don’t use words taught to us by human wisdom [that is science and human theories. We use words taught to us by the Spirit. We use the Spirit’s words to explain spiritual truths...They think these things are foolish. They cannot understand them, because they can only be understood with the Spirit’s help....But anyone without the Spirit is not able to make proper judgments about us (or God). "

    Science by nature is reductionist theories. It attempts to make a theoretical framework where everything (no matter how unlimited) must fit into this reduced framework. Science, therefore, cannot answer how the world was created because it fails to understand that creation was a spiritual act that only the Holy Spirit knows and reveals in Christians. It seems like a paradox. How can the physical creation of the world be a spiritual act. It was God's desire to create a good world and He acted out of love for mankind.

    Evolution cannot be the answer to creation. No matter how logical and sound it seems, it is wrong. God doesn't fit into its reductionist framework and therefore He must be completely ignored, even though He is the creator. Any theory that omits God as the source of creation is foolish. "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I will confuse the understanding of the intelligent." (1 Cor 1:19, Isaiah 29:!4) That is what Isaiah says thousands of years ago against science and evolution (worldly wisdom) because it omits or fights against God.

    If you would like to discuss a particular evolutionist theory, we can. Not all the evolution theories are against the Bible. Many support "intelligent design" as cryptic code for God's involvement in creation.
  • geomike
    [quote author=TITL link=topic=12585.msg147739#msg147739 date=1321749984]
    We don't dispute the Bible or try to prove it.


    The book of Titus (don't remember which verse) tells us to Test All Things.
  • HolmesHolmes
    + Irini nem ehmot,

    [quote author=geomike link=topic=12585.msg147813#msg147813 date=1321852027]
    [quote author=TITL link=topic=12585.msg147739#msg147739 date=1321749984]
    We don't dispute the Bible or try to prove it.


    The book of Titus (don't remember which verse) tells us to Test All Things.


    1 Thessalonians 5:21: 'Test all things; hold fast what is good.'
  • Unknown
    Another question I has is the following:

    Certain things in the Bible are accredited to god. They sometimes sound like the have perfectly natural explanations.

    1) Adam, you are dust and to dust you shall return: Maybe Moses realized that when people die, they become dust, so he made up some kind of reason, claiming that humans are originally dust, and that is why they return to that.

    2) Samson lost his strength after having his hair cut: But he also got his eyes gouged out. That is a natural explanation to why lost his strength. After a while, the disorientation of loosing his sight was overcome, and he gained the strength to destroy the pillars.

    3) The demon possessed people: Epileptics?

    Things like this make me confused. It looks as though they have perfectly natural explanation, but some random guy came along, and decided to pin them all on God. Forgive me, this is not exactly how I feel, but it is a thought that I am battling with.

    ReturnOrthodoxy
  • andrew8345andrew8345
    That's funny you bring all that stuff up because some people dedicate their whole lives to finding a natural explanation for all the phenomenons in the Bible. . .they're called unbelievers.
  • Unknown
    [quote author=Andrew link=topic=12585.msg147816#msg147816 date=1321854258]
    That's funny you bring all that stuff up because some people dedicate their whole lives to finding a natural explanation for all the phenomenons in the Bible. . .they're called unbelievers.

    OK
Sign In or Register to comment.