Theological Opinions

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

orthodox is basically 'established' or 'traditional', tho of course russian and greek and armenian orthodox churches aren't that - the original christianity was coptic, of the form still practised in ethiopia, BTW ethiopia aka Abyssinia was the first state or nation to adopt christianity as it's official religion, though the romans soon followed suit

there are also orthodox jews - dont know much about this, maybe RtB can help

[Nurvingiel]

Oh yeah, I even read "The Chosen" by Chaim Potok... how could I forget? (I love that book... I forget all the theology though. Maybe it's time to read it again...)

[inked]

The word was actually invented so GK Chesterton would have a title for one of his most famous books ! ORTHODOXY by GK Chesterton.

In its adjectival form it can be used of any movement or school which had or has clear belief formulations and/or which has an authoritative voice speaking for the group. A purely secular example would be the claims of Stalin and Trotsky competing for the headship of the Communist Party in Russia after Lenin's death. Each could claim to be an inheritor of the mantle of leadership and that his version/interpretation should be established. The "orthodoxy" came to be defined by Stalin (who conveniently had Trotsky murdered). Then, the heterodox Mao started up in China. Of course, Mao insisted that it was Stalin who was heterodox.

See?

Or, one could write that Copernicus revised the orthodox Ptolemaic understanding of the arrangement of the cosmos from geocentric to heliocentric, that Tycho Brahe proposed an intermediate model, and that Kepler (using Tycho Brahe's observations) established the new cosmology as standard scientific orthodoxy.

See?

Plate techtonics were a heterodox concept in the late 1950's and early 1960's but are now the orthodox view in geology circles in regard to planetary reformation processes.

See?

Or, perhaps, best for you Nurv, the Linnaean orthodoxy in description is giving way to a newer phylogenetic classification based on DNA analysis and statistical groupings of relatedness.


So the word orthodox is used often and appropriately outside religious circles as is the opposing word heterodox. And in the sense of the accepted, right, or correct view or understanding of that particular area of teaching.


In the case of the specific Anglican questions:

Global South is a shortening of the Anglican Communion members of the following continental areas - South America, Central America, Africa, and Asia - where 70 million of an estimated 75 - 77 million Anglicans live. As it happens, the majority of the land masses involved are at or below the equator, hence the Global South. Russia, Britain, Europe, Canada, the USA, and Mexico would be the Global North geographically. In Anglican parlance, the Global North is composed of the ACA, ECUSA, CoE and related national churches. The Global North has been the historic seat of the Anglican Communion but comprises only a few percents of the actual membership while yielding the most economic impact. Historically seen as the place from which missionaries went to the Global South mission fields, the Global South is now sending missionaries to the Global North due to the inroads of secularism and error in the constituent countries.

The Anglican Communion are those descendant churches in national forms who adhere to the Anglican Articles of Unity in faith and practice, recognize the Archbishop of Canterbury as "first among equals" and are in communion with him, and are invited to participate in the Lambeth meetings from which various instruments of unity have issued and instruments of instruction.

Due to the variant and heterodox and non-orthodox teachings and actions of the ECUSA and ACA, against the instruments of unity and the teachings on human sexuality promulgated in Lambeth 1998, there are 22 of 38 provinces in the Anglican Communion who are in "broken communion" or "impaired communion" with those Provinces. Think of it as they will not or cannot share Eucharist because the ECUSA and ACA have not adhered to any theological justification of their positions on a AC-wide basis, they have acted unilaterally in defiance of the Lambeth 1998 statement on Human Sexuality, and they have been called to task by the Windsor Report with specific recommendations to correct the erroneous actions, provide the necessary theological justifications to the AC, and act like they are part of the family instead of totally autonomous provinces.

In this case, the chain of orthodox teaching is clearly established, conforms to specific requirements, expects participants to adhere to minimum standards, and identifies those who are not so doing.

See?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

In its adjectival form it can be used of any movement or school which had or has clear belief formulations and/or which has an authoritative voice speaking for the group. A purely secular example would be the claims of Stalin and Trotsky competing for the headship of the Communist Party in Russia after Lenin's death. Each could claim to be an inheritor of the mantle of leadership and that his version/interpretation should be established. The "orthodoxy" came to be defined by Stalin (who conveniently had Trotsky murdered). Then, the heterodox Mao started up in China. Of course, Mao insisted that it was Stalin who was heterodox.

See?

That was the best explanation ever!

Except the Linnaean one was awesome... it has a special place near to my heart. Interesting that there is only one plant named after Linnaeus himself - Linnea borealis, twinflower. (Very beautiful plant too!)

And though we have changed some of the genera or species that he originally gave, we stuck with his two-name system.

I'll tackle the rest of your post tomorrow.

Gnight!

[Nurvingiel]

Hm... looks like tomorrow never came on that one.


Now I have another question, for anyone. Why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?

This is actually a question for anyone who believes the Bible to be 100% the word of God. If you don't believe that, the easy explanation is that the people who wrote the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs at the time. Of course, there could be still other explanations about which I am not aware.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Hm... looks like tomorrow never came on that one.


Now I have another question, for anyone. Why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?

This is actually a question for anyone who believes the Bible to be 100% the word of God. If you don't believe that, the easy explanation is that the people who wrote the Bible didn't know about dinosaurs at the time. Of course, there could be still other explanations about which I am not aware.

(Gets extremely excited) Remember, Nurvi, you haven't read the Bible all the way through yet.

One of the marvelous things about the scriptures is that in Genesis, just like it mentions the break-up of the continents, it does mention the dinosaurs.

Genesis 3:14- So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, 'Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.'"

This scripture clearly indicates that at one point, reptiles were not all on their bellies as they are now. They stood up above the ground. "Crawling on its belly" was a punishment from God. If it was a punishment, then in the past the creature must have had its belly above the ground rather then flat. Rather neat .

Verse 9 of Genesis Chapter 1 says, 'And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.' That is a scripture that says that at one point in history, all the water of the ocean, and in all probability all land that exists, was gathered together in one place. A neat depiction of Pangea, to me . Then in Chapter 10:25, it says, "Two sons were born to Eber. One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan." In my opinion, though this is debatable, it's a reference to the break-up of the continents.

In my opinion, there is even a scripture that may be indicative of evolution being used in the Lord's creative process. Genesis Chapter 1:24 says, 'And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds . . ."' This seems to me to show that the scripture says environment had a role to play in the way the animals became formed. Through evolution because of changing environment, animals would in a very literal way have had "the land produce living creatures according to their kinds."

Remember also that even in the scripture, the sea creatures were created first, then the land animals, and finally humans. That was the creative order as described as scripture- precisely the same as is predicted by the modern theory of evolution.

[Nurvingiel]

Wow that was awesome Lief! Thanks. I guess one could infer without too much difficulty, that dinosaurs are the ones being punished in Genesis.

The breakup of the continents and hints at evolution are really interesting too.

Yet more inspiration to read the Bible all the way through.

[EarthBound]

Lief, thanks for sharring that, good stuff. Ever hear about the case made that the Earth had another atmospheric layer (mostly H2O) "back in the day", accounts for larger creatures, larger plants, ect., then the idea of the flood relates to the shift of that layer of moisture to ground = flood.

I'm not advocating this idea, I'm just asking if you've (or anyone else) heard of it?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

Lief, thanks for sharring that, good stuff. Ever hear about the case made that the Earth had another atmospheric layer (mostly H2O) "back in the day", accounts for larger creatures, larger plants, ect., then the idea of the flood relates to the shift of that layer of moisture to ground = flood.

I'm not advocating this idea, I'm just asking if you've (or anyone else) heard of it?

Here's a post I wrote a couple years ago on the subject of the Biblical long ages.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cirdan
As to the extgrodinary ages described in the bible, you must remember that there is a limit to the number of times our DNA can replicate, without being part of a stem cell, gamete, etc. Even adding extrodinary living conditions and allowing say a 50% increase in age (very generous) 350 years is still well outside all modern limits of age. So, Sheeana is right, this requires a significant genetic variation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, though 350 years is well outside of the modern limit, I don't think its primary source is the one you've mentioned. Allow me to read some quotes from my Chemistry book:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written in "Basics for Chemistry"
As ionizing radiation passes through matter, it interacts with molecules, creating ions and high-energy molecular fragments called free radicals. Free radicals are very reactive, and cause further chemical changes that are harmful to living cells.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large doses of radiation are fatal because they cause failure of the blood-forming system, the gastrointestinal system, and the central nervous system. Smaller doses have effects that may not be observed until years later, such as impaired fertility, shortened life span[italics added], or cancer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to avoid exposure to radiation, because small amounts of radiation, called background radiation, are constantly present around us. High energy radiation from outer space, called cosmic rays, contribute to the background radiation. Background radiation is also produced by the naturally occurring radioisotopes in minerals and in the construction materials that contain these minerals. As shown in Table 17-4, background radiation is the major source of radiation exposure for most people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17-4 proceeds to show us that the Average dose rate (mrem/year) is 182. Of that 182, 102 comes primarily from cosmic rays and radioisotopes. Most of the remainder comes from modern medical instruments.

Now, let's look again at the different symptoms of long term radiation contact. Cancer, impaired fertility, and shortened life span.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written in the World Book
Cancer strikes people of all ages but especially middle-aged persons and the elderly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So cancer vulnerability plainly could increase over the long run because of radioactivity. As is logical- it has effect over the short term.

I don't need a World Book quote to demonstrate that it is middle aged persons and the elderly that are less likely to successfully bear children- we all know it.

And shortened life span also is a symptom.


Is it not conceivable then, that by a dramatic change in the radiocarbon levels on the planet, ages might be greatly reduced from what they once were?




A few evidences for rapid change of radiocarbon are:

Unbalanced RC equation permits changes in RC levels.
Large deviations in radiocarbon dates in individual ancient sites:
Tarim mummies: 4000 yr mummy and neighbor 6000 yr mummy
Jericho: nomadic hunters remain in the same spot from 10,000 BC to 4,000 BC
European cave art: unchanged between 30,000 BC and 5,000 BC.


There are other evidences I could bring up. Unfortunately I haven't got them all ready yet.

I don't know enough about the flood yet to comment much on it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Wow that was awesome Lief! Thanks. I guess one could infer without too much difficulty, that dinosaurs are the ones being punished in Genesis.

The breakup of the continents and hints at evolution are really interesting too.

Yet more inspiration to read the Bible all the way through.

My brother and I were joking together the other day about the dinosaurs in the Bible. I said, 'Imagine a T-Rex tempting Eve.

The serpent: (Advances toward Eve) ROAR!

Eve: I'm really not sure I should be doing this . . .

The serpent: ROAR!

Eve: Okay! (Eats of the apple and takes it to Adam)

Adam: My dear, God told us not to . . .

The serpent: ROAR!

Adam: Mmm . . . yummy.

[EarthBound]

in goonie-voice, "ha ha, very funny"

Lief is funny when he's not blowing things up *coughthecafecough*

[Lief Erikson]

(Studies the sky with great interest)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by EarthBound

Lief, thanks for sharring that, good stuff. Ever hear about the case made that the Earth had another atmospheric layer (mostly H2O) "back in the day", accounts for larger creatures, larger plants, ect., then the idea of the flood relates to the shift of that layer of moisture to ground = flood.

I'm not advocating this idea, I'm just asking if you've (or anyone else) heard of it?

Yes - actually in Lief's post two above yours, the "water under the sky" ...

And about dinosaurs - well, I don't recall butterflies being mentioned in the Bible - does that mean the Bible is saying butterflies don't exist?

The point is, IMO, that the purpose of the Bible is NOT to be a science book; it's to bring mankind back to the right relationship with a God that loves them.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

the purpose of the Bible is NOT to be a science book

and theres a point that cant be emphasized enough. too bad all creationists dont believe this as well.

[Rían]

Some do I do!

You know, I knew you'd made a comment like that - I could have NOT said what I did, but I'm interested in the truth, so I said it. Yay truth! Yay talking! And I agree with you, btw, but I extend that to evolutionists, too, and their "bible", which is the assumption of naturalism.

Personally, I think the SCIENTISTS (and please grant them the courtesy of calling them by the title they have legitimately earned) at ICR (Institute of Creation Research) sometimes go too far in pushing their philosophy. However, when I evaluate what they have written, I separate the philosophical opinions from the scientific ones. And I do the same thing when I evaluate claims for evolution. There are DEFINITELY philosopical opinions in evolution, too, as well as scientific

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes - actually in Lief's post two above yours, the "water under the sky" ...

To what place, in your view, were these waters gathered? I don't understand your reasoning, or how in your view this connects with the flood. To me, it describes the waters surrounding Pangea. Quite literally, the waters of the ocean in the past were in one place. There weren't the multiple seas and oceans of today.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And about dinosaurs - well, I don't recall butterflies being mentioned in the Bible - does that mean the Bible is saying butterflies don't exist?

Your logic is flawless. Many creatures have existed without being mentioned in the scripture. However, if in your view the dinosaurs are not mentioned in Genesis, God must have been cursing a mighty strange serpent .

[Rían]

As some evolutionists I know feel free to speculate about the atmosphere in times past some creationists have also speculated about a vapor canopy in the atmosphere.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for your thoughts on dinosaurs in the Bible guys. It didn't occur to me that dinosaurs weren't more special or deserving of mention than other animals.

Now, from the marriage thread, RÃ*an hinted at the Christian concept of submission in marriage. To quote what she wrote in the marriage thread:

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

It reminds me of people who object to the Christian concept of "submission" of the wife to the husband in marriage, when they really have no idea of what it means, or are even aware of the much HARDER command to the husband to love his wife like Christ loves the church. They'll say things like, "You shouldn't submit to your husband! You should think for yourself!" And to them I respond, "You tell me to think for myself, yet you tell me to do what YOU think is right?! How is that thinking for myself?! I've THOUGHT for myself, thank you, and I think the Christian concept of submission (as opposed to what some non-Christians think it is) is an excellent one. So please don't tell me what to do - I refuse to submit to your opinion."

Christian submission in marriage doesn't mean not thinking for yourself, nor does it mean brainless obedience. I should open a thread on that subject, it's an interesting one!

So RÃ*an, the floor is yours. I don't know anything about this concept and I'd like to hear what you have to say.

[Rían]

Sure, Nurvi!

I'd like to open the discussion, in my round-about rabbity way (which I do because I think it leads to more interesting discussions), by asking people what they think Biblical submission is. I don't do this to condemn at all - I know you know this, Nurvi - but only because I think it would be interesting to hear different thoughts on the subject to set up a background for the discussion. And of course if you haven't studied it, why would you be expected to know what it is? So anyway, whoever wants to share, please share what you think Biblical submission of the wife to the husband is, and any related issues. IF no one wants to do this, I'll go ahead shortly and explain what it is to the best of my understanding.

[Rían]

I'll put forth some examples that I think are incorrect and unsupported by the Bible (and since we're talking Biblical submission, I think it's reasonable to expect that claims should be backed up by a Bible verse) -

IMO, it's incorrect to say that Biblical submission involves the concept that the man is better, or smarter, or more capable in general, than the wife.

Also IMO it's incorrect to say that Biblical submission involves the concept of the man "lording it over" his wife, or treating his wife with anything other than respect.

Also IMO it's incorrect to say that Biblical submission requires the wife to not think, or to obey something she thinks is wrong.