I got a degree in the STEM field before finding Orthodoxy. Science is a tool to use in our benefit. Walking that fine line is hard but not impossible. I’m grateful to have been educated in the material world first before the spiritual one because they complement one another
True science is purely descriptive and predictive. The split happened because the church was too ridged in their conceptions that science appeared to contradict and set up this opposition between science and Christianity, thereby eventually leading to materialist atheism becoming synonymous with “science”. This is why when one says they have a scientific mindset about their view of reality, they mean they have a materialistic atheist view, where they extent that they aren’t they mean they believe something outside of science. That’s why we can see that materialist atheism came out of Christianity, and an opposition to Christianity. It would be impossible for materialist atheism to come out of a culture of Daoism for example. That’s why Seraphim Rose understood the wisdom of Daoism, seeing Christ as the fulfillment of Daoism. Whether or not one agrees with this, the point is clear. Daoism doesn’t set up a opposition that could ever lead to Scientific Materialism. I would say this is a great failure of Christianity that it allowed this to happen.
As far as I have understood - St. Herman press has come under control of a group of clergy who are trying to edit/remove any negative references to the CCCP...(hence stopping the reprint in the first place). We may be better off sharing pdfs of the book until we see the outcome of the reprint.
@@Lancia444 Wait, isn't it heresy for the clergy to want to remove negative references to the CCCP? The USSR is responsible for thousands of murdered Orthodox clergymen.
These vids are awesome. If you have the time and desire, deff consider making a podcast with this content as well. I am certain it’d do well, especially because this is all audio and people like to listen to content when driving, working out, or other scenarios where they can’t have UA-cam open. Regardless, thank you for this channel! 🙏🏽
@@OrthodoxWisdom I took a while to reply to this for a few reasons - mainly because I've never created or assisted with creating a podcast. But after contemplating, I am definitely willing and able to help you make this happen bro! Let's figure it out
DP, were you able to find my contact info in the “about” section of the channel? Please let me know how I can help make it easier for us to connect and talk more in private.
@@OrthodoxWisdom Hey! Sorry for the late reply. I actually haven't had any social media accounts for a few years now haha, but I will make a Twitter account tomorrow and reach out to you. Times like this are when I wish UA-cam had DMs :)
What are we to make of astronomical comments in the fathers which appear disproven, such as explicit geocentrism? Are we to take Einstein's view that due to the theory of relativity that, technically, the Earth can be the relative center of the universe? But, what do we make of the specifics of some of their comments? @4:46 Seems to say that due to improved observations, that modern science can improve upon these details.
Excellent question. I see Fr. Seraphim explicitly states in this passage you refer to that “the knowledge of natural sciences, to be sure, is one that is constantly open to new findings made by observation and experiment….” Shortly after, he says that the errors that anyone can make when writing about scientific facts “in no way detract from the overall value of such works as the Hexaemeron, wherein scientific facts are never used as more than illustrations of principles which derive, not from knowledge of nature, but from revelation. With regard to knowledge of the facts of nature modern works of science are of course superior to the “scientific” part of the Hexaemeron and similar works of Holy Fathers, being based as they are on more precise observations of nature. This is the one and only respect in which science can be said to be superior or to “improve” on the writings of the Holy Fathers; but this is a point which in the Holy Fathers is quite incidental to other, theological and moral teachings.” I also looked through each page listed in the index for geocentrism (also called the Ptolemaic model) and heliocentrism (also called the Copernican model). There are about 5 references across the book where Fr Seraphim speaks on this. In one passage he goes into the history of the models and how the geocentric model couldn’t easily explain the figure eight, back and forth movements of other planets in relation to the earth. Over time the heliocentric model has proved more able to account for the planetary phenomena. He accepts this without any noticeable problem. Multiples times in these references to the two models, he draws a parallel between the geocentric model and evolutionary theory. He says “The evolutionary model [compared to the traditional creation model], on the other hand, requires a good many corrections. In this regard, it can be compared to the old model of the Ptolemaic universe (vs. the Copernican model). Like the Ptolemaic model the evolutionary model is now proving quite cumbersome.” Beyond this I don’t personally have much to add. I have not delved into this specific issue in any great depth and don’t personally feel the need to, beyond how it might help someone else if they are hung up on this. But your general question about how new scientific discoveries, not new theories and philosophies but actual facts specifically about the natural world, are to be regarded is very important. I have nothing better than to point to Fr. Seraphim and the other Holy Fathers. The truth of their theological understanding of the world before the Fall and the Fall itself leaves no room for evolutionary theory, and Fr. Seraphim’s book very persuasively shows this. St. Paul states clearly one of the most important truths here in 1 Cor 15:21: “By man came death.” I’d be happy to read a more detailed analysis of this question by another Saint or Father if you find something. I hope this helps.
Even if science now has improved observations, the devil was, is and will always be the father of all lies. Are they telling us their true observations? The evil one knows that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God yet he will reject it and put himself in the position of being “God”. Even if we have the technology to get rid of certain questions once and for all, that is just one part of the problem. The other part of the problem is whether we have people who speak the truth or are liars, “sons of the devil”, Freemasons, whom have and always will hide the truth. If it were not for the Apostles we would have no record at all of Jesus Christ. The Romans and the Highpriests and Pharisees did their ultimate best to not have any record of Jesus Christ, even when they knew who He was, even when they saw Him, He had to be non-existant. Therefore, why would they not be hiding the truth now, if their ultimate nature is that of “children of the devil” John 8:44?
I am not very well read in Patristics on these matters but I am a biologist and as I read St Athanasius' work "On The Incarnation" - widely considered to still be the best or most definitive work on the topic - I happen across a number of passages that, if we assume no conflict with the Patristic consensus, will allow us to accept the overwhelming abundance of evidence for evolutionary mechanisms in creation, perhaps not with all the same assumptions the pure naturalist will make about man, but without making fools of ourselves by denying evidence we close our eyes to. More importantly, on the other hand, also without dismissing the Word of God in Spirit led fathers who, even if they were unaware of evolution, like St Athanasius appear so far to me to have an uncanny knack for emphasising their points about man/Adam and death without going so far as modern protestant YECs and Orthodox directly influenced by the movement such as Fr Seraphim Rose do to rule out an evolutionary mechanism that is undeniable in nature and indeed is characteristic of a Creator who can blot out sins and recreate a new earth as prophecied. For the non-biologist, a study of creation renders 3 overlapping family trees of life from 3 separate fields of data - geology, biogeography, and phylogenetics. On top of this, comparative physiology and genetics confirm similarities and awkward pathways that could only have formed by the relationships predicted by these models. This occurs not by coincidence, nor from satanic machinations, but from seeking truth. I attended university with the express purpose of finding out why these scientists believed in evolution and showing them why they were wrong and while I would still love to settle the matter in that manner, what I was shown made it clear that evolution couldn't not happen. Now, I have witnessed many signs and even two clear miracles from God so I know that He can do whatever He wills, but I do not see why evolution of our physical nature is any more objectionable to being created from the same biochemistry as animals, from the same elements as our planet formed in the sun, or from - as the Bible summarises - dust/earth/adam. This, it seems to me, is a purely cultural and modern human conceit not shared by St Athanasius, which is where I would appreciate both of your more learned opinions. Since I am no expert and this is merely my initial take, I am happy to seek the truth even if I must change my mind in submission to God. If you are interested, rather than overwhelming you with quotes, I'll just post one here, from the first page and I'd be interested in what you understand him to be saying, if not that man's physical essence was impermanent and mortal by natural law prior to and after his fall from obedience to Divine law. "For God is good - or rather, of all goodness He is Fountainhead, and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything. Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked - namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things - namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption. This is what Holy Scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, “Of every tree that is in the garden you shall surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, but in the day that you do eat, you shall surely die.” “You shall surely die” - not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption. "
Have you listened to my recording of over a dozen modern Saints on the issue of evolution? Creation, Early Man, and Evolution | According to Modern Holy Fathers ua-cam.com/video/Y0sdPLJO3cE/v-deo.html Also, you can read Fr. Seraphim’s book (older edition) here free: www.scribd.com/document/416020694/Seraphim-Rose-Genesis-Creation-Early-Man I think you’ll see that Fr. Seraphim and the Holy Father throughout the Church have a coherent and consistent vision of the issue at hand.
@@OrthodoxWisdom Thanks so much for replying! I was worried it was too old but this is a particular conflict that looms large in my life and has great bearing on my potential approach to environmental stewardship. I have been stalling in my career development while entering the church so that I can be led by God and the Church in how I teach others to be stewards of their local natural spaces. I don't want to stray or lead others astray. I think rather it could lead to opportunities to sow and water in the Kingdom in ways more important than physical food and clean water. I don't question that the fathers are consistent - I rely upon it, although early fathers trump modern fathers if I do find that they disagree, right? I take Fr Seraphim's position that scientific truth is from God and that the philosophical additions are not to be taken as science. But while I dismiss what offends him and so many others about evolution, I cannot yet dismiss the clear and apparent truth in it from my honest studies. Unless every other Father contradicts and proves St Athanasius mistaken, as quoted above, there is no more problem with evolutionary mechanisms being in play than those mechanisms by which plants grow and produce fruit that can be eaten and decay when God commanded the earth to "bring forth life" out of itself. Nor is it more offensive that our physical nature be related to the rest of physical nature by evolution than by consumption, digestion and assimilation of the common physical elements. I will listen to these fathers and see for myself if they are making the points you and other non-scientists interpret them to make but I would appreciate it if you can try to account for what St Athanasius said when he said man in his physical essence was impermanent according to natural law because it is this exact distinction between physical and spiritual nature that seems obvious to so many biologist theologians and if I am reading my own bias as a biologist into his words then somebody with the opposite bias and a theological background should be best placed to set me straight.
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science may be as old as the human species, and some of the earliest archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old. The earliest written records in the history of science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3000 to 1200 BCE. Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek conceptions of the world deteriorated in Western Europe during the early centuries (400 to 1000 CE) of the Middle Ages, but was preserved in the Muslim world during the Islamic Golden Age. The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th century revived "natural philosophy", which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century, as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions. The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and it was not until the 19th century that many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape; along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science". Modern science is typically divided into three major branches: natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study the physical world; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules. There is disagreement concerning whether the formal sciences are science disciplines, because they do not rely on empirical evidence. Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine. New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems. Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions, government agencies, and companies. The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritizing the ethical and moral development of commercial products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, and environmental protection.
And it is worth ordering from the priest in the church to read the akathist for your name of St. Cyprian and St. Justine and of St. Archangel Michael against magic and all enemies visible and unvisible. This is if you are baptized Orthodox. There always were sorcerers even after Jesus said it is from devil they remained in every country and on every second or third family something is put from a sorcerer. And when you intend to go to command the akathist in the church, such thoughts may appear: "Maybe tomorrow, or next week", "Maybe I'm such a freak and no one is watching me (girls or boys, if you can not anyways find a pair, or you can for some reason speak only with one girl or boy.)", "The life is this way with good times and bad times", " I am so(if you have impotence)". etc. These thoughts come from demons from sorcery spells because only the prayer of the priest can 100% protect from magic and enemies visible and invisible. Jesus Christ told the apostles(which are the first priests) "I give you the right to untie everything that is tied in heaven and on earth.". Faith and creed is opinion, is how somebody thinks with his head. Repent is changing and not auto-humiliation as many think. May be enherited soul ilnessses like despresia, schizofrenia, Tourette sindrom, insomnia, bifurcation of personality etc. as they are from soul illnesses. Firstly everyone must to eradicate schizofrenia, depression etc. from him and after that to planify making children, in order that they will not jump from balconie, have blood cancer, be born bodytobody joined twins or two headed and etc. These soul illnesses can be healed by eucharisty. In the afternoon before eucharist day you have to read " The prayers before eucharisty" where are asked from eucharisty such things like: soul and body healing, sins forgiveness, protection from devils etc. It is better to go to confession in the morning in the day of eucharisty (before eucharisty)because from evening to morning everyone can make the same sins again and again and also other bigger sins. If not to forgive someone who asked for forgiveness it is not worth going to eucharisty because the sins will not be forgiven. Humbleness is awareness that in every doing you can fall and not auto-oppresion as most do and think, someone without auto-oppression is 100% free in moves in every direction, it is like a lion at freedom .Entering(submersion 3 times with a certain prayer and crossing yourself) in water springs of orthodox saints (which are near or in monasteries)give very much power and sureness to people with depression, panic attacks, schizofrenia and other soul illnesses, there are some springs of mother of God Maria that even heal soul illnesses.
Socialists, communists, Marxists and leftists of all stripes. Navel gazing, radical subjectivism and sophistry. "Nothing presents less of an obstacle than the perfecting of the imaginary" - Hippolyte Taine "He who seeks to become God, necessarily becomes the devil." - Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe
This holy man has a lot of wisdom. But his views on Roman Catholicism are unintentionally narrow. He makes generalized statements against us without mentioning any exceptions. It would be unfair for us Catholics to do the same.
@@richardsherman9963 It's been four months since watching the video and posting my comment. I don't remember what he said about Roman Catholicism in the video off the top of my head, but I do remember it seeming prejudiced. Becoming holy is not about pointing out what you think some other sect is doing wrong. And when a holy person does such things it makes everyone else think it a good thing to do - since modern man has even more difficulty making distinctions.
@@vivacristorey4363 Thank you for the reply. I do notice people making statements about the Catholic Church that go beyond their actual knowledge and sometimes with bad intent. I like that you use the term "unintentional" in Fr. Seraphim's case given his love of the Truth.
@@richardsherman9963 Thank you. I try my best to give the benefit of the doubt with intentions for two reasons. The first is because I have often myself in the past made ignorant statements about the Church that I would later belong to. And the second reason is because we as humans are not usually the best judge of intentions, which is I think why it is always best to leave such judgements up to God unless we know for sure. That being said, I agree that with him in particular his love for truth gives evidence to it being unintentional. Sometimes, God allows each of us to remain ignorant on at least one thing to keep us humble.
I got a degree in the STEM field before finding Orthodoxy. Science is a tool to use in our benefit. Walking that fine line is hard but not impossible. I’m grateful to have been educated in the material world first before the spiritual one because they complement one another
True science is purely descriptive and predictive. The split happened because the church was too ridged in their conceptions that science appeared to contradict and set up this opposition between science and Christianity, thereby eventually leading to materialist atheism becoming synonymous with “science”. This is why when one says they have a scientific mindset about their view of reality, they mean they have a materialistic atheist view, where they extent that they aren’t they mean they believe something outside of science. That’s why we can see that materialist atheism came out of Christianity, and an opposition to Christianity. It would be impossible for materialist atheism to come out of a culture of Daoism for example. That’s why Seraphim Rose understood the wisdom of Daoism, seeing Christ as the fulfillment of Daoism. Whether or not one agrees with this, the point is clear. Daoism doesn’t set up a opposition that could ever lead to Scientific Materialism. I would say this is a great failure of Christianity that it allowed this to happen.
Wonderful to have while waiting for his Creation book to be republished. Thank you.
As far as I have understood - St. Herman press has come under control of a group of clergy who are trying to edit/remove any negative references to the CCCP...(hence stopping the reprint in the first place).
We may be better off sharing pdfs of the book until we see the outcome of the reprint.
Remind me what CCCP stands for?
@@OrthodoxWisdom Союз Советских Социалистических Республик - which is in English the USSR.
@@Lancia444 Wait, isn't it heresy for the clergy to want to remove negative references to the CCCP? The USSR is responsible for thousands of murdered Orthodox clergymen.
@@Lancia444 Censorship of a Saint is unacceptable.
This is why i love orthodox. I can balance faith and reason.
Let God be true and every man a liar.
Creation testifies to God.
God's cosmology and handy work in creation is self-evident.
Thank you for this important work
These vids are awesome. If you have the time and desire, deff consider making a podcast with this content as well. I am certain it’d do well, especially because this is all audio and people like to listen to content when driving, working out, or other scenarios where they can’t have UA-cam open. Regardless, thank you for this channel! 🙏🏽
Any chance you’d be able to help me make this happen?
@@OrthodoxWisdom I took a while to reply to this for a few reasons - mainly because I've never created or assisted with creating a podcast. But after contemplating, I am definitely willing and able to help you make this happen bro! Let's figure it out
Wonderful, brother! Please reach out to me via facebook or twitter (see the about me section for the info). Let's talk more soon.
DP, were you able to find my contact info in the “about” section of the channel? Please let me know how I can help make it easier for us to connect and talk more in private.
@@OrthodoxWisdom Hey! Sorry for the late reply. I actually haven't had any social media accounts for a few years now haha, but I will make a Twitter account tomorrow and reach out to you. Times like this are when I wish UA-cam had DMs :)
What are we to make of astronomical comments in the fathers which appear disproven, such as explicit geocentrism? Are we to take Einstein's view that due to the theory of relativity that, technically, the Earth can be the relative center of the universe? But, what do we make of the specifics of some of their comments? @4:46 Seems to say that due to improved observations, that modern science can improve upon these details.
Excellent question. I see Fr. Seraphim explicitly states in this passage you refer to that “the knowledge of natural sciences, to be sure, is one that is constantly open to new findings made by observation and experiment….” Shortly after, he says that the errors that anyone can make when writing about scientific facts “in no way detract from the overall value of such works as the Hexaemeron, wherein scientific facts are never used as more than illustrations of principles which derive, not from knowledge of nature, but from revelation. With regard to knowledge of the facts of nature modern works of science are of course superior to the “scientific” part of the Hexaemeron and similar works of Holy Fathers, being based as they are on more precise observations of nature. This is the one and only respect in which science can be said to be superior or to “improve” on the writings of the Holy Fathers; but this is a point which in the Holy Fathers is quite incidental to other, theological and moral teachings.”
I also looked through each page listed in the index for geocentrism (also called the Ptolemaic model) and heliocentrism (also called the Copernican model). There are about 5 references across the book where Fr Seraphim speaks on this. In one passage he goes into the history of the models and how the geocentric model couldn’t easily explain the figure eight, back and forth movements of other planets in relation to the earth. Over time the heliocentric model has proved more able to account for the planetary phenomena. He accepts this without any noticeable problem. Multiples times in these references to the two models, he draws a parallel between the geocentric model and evolutionary theory. He says “The evolutionary model [compared to the traditional creation model], on the other hand, requires a good many corrections. In this regard, it can be compared to the old model of the Ptolemaic universe (vs. the Copernican model). Like the Ptolemaic model the evolutionary model is now proving quite cumbersome.”
Beyond this I don’t personally have much to add. I have not delved into this specific issue in any great depth and don’t personally feel the need to, beyond how it might help someone else if they are hung up on this.
But your general question about how new scientific discoveries, not new theories and philosophies but actual facts specifically about the natural world, are to be regarded is very important. I have nothing better than to point to Fr. Seraphim and the other Holy Fathers. The truth of their theological understanding of the world before the Fall and the Fall itself leaves no room for evolutionary theory, and Fr. Seraphim’s book very persuasively shows this. St. Paul states clearly one of the most important truths here in 1 Cor 15:21: “By man came death.”
I’d be happy to read a more detailed analysis of this question by another Saint or Father if you find something. I hope this helps.
Even if science now has improved observations, the devil was, is and will always be the father of all lies. Are they telling us their true observations? The evil one knows that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God yet he will reject it and put himself in the position of being “God”. Even if we have the technology to get rid of certain questions once and for all, that is just one part of the problem. The other part of the problem is whether we have people who speak the truth or are liars, “sons of the devil”, Freemasons, whom have and always will hide the truth. If it were not for the Apostles we would have no record at all of Jesus Christ. The Romans and the Highpriests and Pharisees did their ultimate best to not have any record of Jesus Christ, even when they knew who He was, even when they saw Him, He had to be non-existant. Therefore, why would they not be hiding the truth now, if their ultimate nature is that of “children of the devil” John 8:44?
I am not very well read in Patristics on these matters but I am a biologist and as I read St Athanasius' work "On The Incarnation" - widely considered to still be the best or most definitive work on the topic - I happen across a number of passages that, if we assume no conflict with the Patristic consensus, will allow us to accept the overwhelming abundance of evidence for evolutionary mechanisms in creation, perhaps not with all the same assumptions the pure naturalist will make about man, but without making fools of ourselves by denying evidence we close our eyes to. More importantly, on the other hand, also without dismissing the Word of God in Spirit led fathers who, even if they were unaware of evolution, like St Athanasius appear so far to me to have an uncanny knack for emphasising their points about man/Adam and death without going so far as modern protestant YECs and Orthodox directly influenced by the movement such as Fr Seraphim Rose do to rule out an evolutionary mechanism that is undeniable in nature and indeed is characteristic of a Creator who can blot out sins and recreate a new earth as prophecied.
For the non-biologist, a study of creation renders 3 overlapping family trees of life from 3 separate fields of data - geology, biogeography, and phylogenetics. On top of this, comparative physiology and genetics confirm similarities and awkward pathways that could only have formed by the relationships predicted by these models. This occurs not by coincidence, nor from satanic machinations, but from seeking truth. I attended university with the express purpose of finding out why these scientists believed in evolution and showing them why they were wrong and while I would still love to settle the matter in that manner, what I was shown made it clear that evolution couldn't not happen. Now, I have witnessed many signs and even two clear miracles from God so I know that He can do whatever He wills, but I do not see why evolution of our physical nature is any more objectionable to being created from the same biochemistry as animals, from the same elements as our planet formed in the sun, or from - as the Bible summarises - dust/earth/adam. This, it seems to me, is a purely cultural and modern human conceit not shared by St Athanasius, which is where I would appreciate both of your more learned opinions.
Since I am no expert and this is merely my initial take, I am happy to seek the truth even if I must change my mind in submission to God. If you are interested, rather than overwhelming you with quotes, I'll just post one here, from the first page and I'd be interested in what you understand him to be saying, if not that man's physical essence was impermanent and mortal by natural law prior to and after his fall from obedience to Divine law.
"For God is good - or rather, of all goodness He is Fountainhead, and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything. Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore, upon men who, as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked - namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in limited degree they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things - namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. If they guarded the grace and retained the loveliness of their original innocence, then the life of paradise should be theirs, without sorrow, pain or care, and after it the assurance of immortality in heaven. But if they went astray and became vile, throwing away their birthright of beauty, then they would come under the natural law of death and live no longer in paradise, but, dying outside of it, continue in death and in corruption. This is what Holy Scripture tells us, proclaiming the command of God, “Of every tree that is in the garden you shall surely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, but in the day that you do eat, you shall surely die.” “You shall surely die” - not just die only, but remain in the state of death and of corruption. "
Have you listened to my recording of over a dozen modern Saints on the issue of evolution? Creation, Early Man, and Evolution | According to Modern Holy Fathers
ua-cam.com/video/Y0sdPLJO3cE/v-deo.html
Also, you can read Fr. Seraphim’s book (older edition) here free: www.scribd.com/document/416020694/Seraphim-Rose-Genesis-Creation-Early-Man
I think you’ll see that Fr. Seraphim and the Holy Father throughout the Church have a coherent and consistent vision of the issue at hand.
@@OrthodoxWisdom Thanks so much for replying! I was worried it was too old but this is a particular conflict that looms large in my life and has great bearing on my potential approach to environmental stewardship. I have been stalling in my career development while entering the church so that I can be led by God and the Church in how I teach others to be stewards of their local natural spaces. I don't want to stray or lead others astray. I think rather it could lead to opportunities to sow and water in the Kingdom in ways more important than physical food and clean water.
I don't question that the fathers are consistent - I rely upon it, although early fathers trump modern fathers if I do find that they disagree, right?
I take Fr Seraphim's position that scientific truth is from God and that the philosophical additions are not to be taken as science. But while I dismiss what offends him and so many others about evolution, I cannot yet dismiss the clear and apparent truth in it from my honest studies.
Unless every other Father contradicts and proves St Athanasius mistaken, as quoted above, there is no more problem with evolutionary mechanisms being in play than those mechanisms by which plants grow and produce fruit that can be eaten and decay when God commanded the earth to "bring forth life" out of itself. Nor is it more offensive that our physical nature be related to the rest of physical nature by evolution than by consumption, digestion and assimilation of the common physical elements.
I will listen to these fathers and see for myself if they are making the points you and other non-scientists interpret them to make but I would appreciate it if you can try to account for what St Athanasius said when he said man in his physical essence was impermanent according to natural law because it is this exact distinction between physical and spiritual nature that seems obvious to so many biologist theologians and if I am reading my own bias as a biologist into his words then somebody with the opposite bias and a theological background should be best placed to set me straight.
Thanks
Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Science may be as old as the human species, and some of the earliest archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old.
The earliest written records in the history of science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3000 to 1200 BCE.
Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes.
After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek conceptions of the world deteriorated in Western Europe during the early centuries (400 to 1000 CE) of the Middle Ages, but was preserved in the Muslim world during the Islamic Golden Age.
The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th century revived "natural philosophy", which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century, as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.
The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and it was not until the 19th century that many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape; along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".
Modern science is typically divided into three major branches: natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study the physical world; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules.
There is disagreement concerning whether the formal sciences are science disciplines, because they do not rely on empirical evidence.
Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine.
New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.
Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions, government agencies, and companies.
The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritizing the ethical and moral development of commercial products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, and environmental protection.
And it is worth ordering from the priest in the church to read the akathist for your name of St. Cyprian and St. Justine and of St. Archangel Michael against magic and all enemies visible and unvisible. This is if you are baptized Orthodox. There always were sorcerers even after Jesus said it is from devil they remained in every country and on every second or third family something is put from a sorcerer. And when you intend to go to command the akathist in the church, such thoughts may appear: "Maybe tomorrow, or next week", "Maybe I'm such a freak and no one is watching me (girls or boys, if you can not anyways find a pair, or you can for some reason speak only with one girl or boy.)", "The life is this way with good times and bad times", " I am so(if you have impotence)". etc. These thoughts come from demons from sorcery spells because only the prayer of the priest can 100% protect from magic and enemies visible and invisible. Jesus Christ told the apostles(which are the first priests) "I give you the right to untie everything that is tied in heaven and on earth.". Faith and creed is opinion, is how somebody thinks with his head. Repent is changing and not auto-humiliation as many think. May be enherited soul ilnessses like despresia, schizofrenia, Tourette sindrom, insomnia, bifurcation of personality etc. as they are from soul illnesses. Firstly everyone must to eradicate schizofrenia, depression etc. from him and after that to planify making children, in order that they will not jump from balconie, have blood cancer, be born bodytobody joined twins or two headed and etc. These soul illnesses can be healed by eucharisty. In the afternoon before eucharist day you have to read " The prayers before eucharisty" where are asked from eucharisty such things like: soul and body healing, sins forgiveness, protection from devils etc. It is better to go to confession in the morning in the day of eucharisty (before eucharisty)because from evening to morning everyone can make the same sins again and again and also other bigger sins. If not to forgive someone who asked for forgiveness it is not worth going to eucharisty because the sins will not be forgiven. Humbleness is awareness that in every doing you can fall and not auto-oppresion as most do and think, someone without auto-oppression is 100% free in moves in every direction, it is like a lion at freedom .Entering(submersion 3 times with a certain prayer and crossing yourself) in water springs of orthodox saints (which are near or in monasteries)give very much power and sureness to people with depression, panic attacks, schizofrenia and other soul illnesses, there are some springs of mother of God Maria that even heal soul illnesses.
16:18 average Hegel fan
Socialists, communists, Marxists and leftists of all stripes. Navel gazing, radical subjectivism and sophistry.
"Nothing presents less of an obstacle than the perfecting of the imaginary" - Hippolyte Taine
"He who seeks to become God, necessarily becomes the devil." - Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe
☦️
This holy man has a lot of wisdom. But his views on Roman Catholicism are unintentionally narrow. He makes generalized statements against us without mentioning any exceptions. It would be unfair for us Catholics to do the same.
Examples of narrow views?
@@richardsherman9963 It's been four months since watching the video and posting my comment. I don't remember what he said about Roman Catholicism in the video off the top of my head, but I do remember it seeming prejudiced. Becoming holy is not about pointing out what you think some other sect is doing wrong. And when a holy person does such things it makes everyone else think it a good thing to do - since modern man has even more difficulty making distinctions.
@@vivacristorey4363 Thank you for the reply. I do notice people making statements about the Catholic Church that go beyond their actual knowledge and sometimes with bad intent. I like that you use the term "unintentional" in Fr. Seraphim's case given his love of the Truth.
@@richardsherman9963 Thank you. I try my best to give the benefit of the doubt with intentions for two reasons. The first is because I have often myself in the past made ignorant statements about the Church that I would later belong to. And the second reason is because we as humans are not usually the best judge of intentions, which is I think why it is always best to leave such judgements up to God unless we know for sure. That being said, I agree that with him in particular his love for truth gives evidence to it being unintentional. Sometimes, God allows each of us to remain ignorant on at least one thing to keep us humble.