Jump to content

Let's Start a Dialogue

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, ByFaithAlone said:

My point is that it is a well documented historical and common interpretation of the Early Church  that the creation account was allegorical in nature and none of these views were condemned by any of the Early Church councils when all Christians were still unified.      

Your comment reminds me of the constantly recurring fallacy of composition some adherents of Evolution give as their reason for believing as they do, "It's a widely accepted theory so it must be true."

Origen lacked faith to believe that when God said "Let there be light", there actually, literally was light, supernatural light prior to the rest of God's Creative acts, the order of which incidently doesn't match the evolutionists supposed order...so much for the allegory and the science of Origen, Aristotle, Darwin et al. 



  For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.  
— Origen, On the First Principles IV.16




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites