The Adamic Creation

[Valkator]

With Armenia being the first Christian nation and the ever-growing reality of Indo-European/Israel history in mind, this certainly poses some serious questions for us and for 'orthodox christian' theology and it's interpretation of human history vis-a-vis the biblical narratives as it pertains to fully understanding ourselves as a people, our people's relationship to God, the Fall, and Redemption in and through Christ.

The Adamic Creation

http://www.kinsmanredeemer.com/adamiccreation.htm

[Valkator]

In addition to the above reference, which introduces this topic, in Book III of his Gnosis, Boris Mouravieff discusses some of the
characteristics and qualities of Pre-Adamic and Adamic humanity.
While the terminology he uses may appear somewhat 'new age-ish' and
he uses such terms like 'evolution' which are problematic from a
creation point of view, his approach is basically from what he terms
an 'esoteric Orthodox Christian' perspective. His works may be useful for us
as we more fully research the spiritual and physical differences
between the two races.

From Gnosis Book III:

"In the first volume of `Gnosis', we already referred several times
to the coexistence of two essentially different races: one of Men,
and another of Anthropoids. We must emphasize the fact that from the
esoteric point of view the latter term has no derogatory meaning.

<In other words, pre-adamics serve a purpose and are part of God's
Plan, versus them just being something to destroy or 'hate'.>

…The Scriptures contain more than one reference to the coexistence on
our planet of these two humanities – which are now alike in form but
unlike in essence. We can even say that the whole dramatic history of
humanity, from the fall of Adam until today, not excluding the
prospect of the new era, is overshadowed by the coexistence of these
two human races whose separation will occur only at the Last
Judgement. (p. 107)



…The human tares, the anthropoid race, are the descendants of pre-
adamic humanity. The principal difference between contemporary pre-
adamic man and adamic man – a difference which is not readily
perceived by the senses – is that the former does not possess the
developed higher centres that exist in the latter which, although
they have been cut off from his waking consciousness since the Fall,
offer him a real possibility of esoteric evolution. Apart from this,
the two races are similar: they have the same lower centres, the same
structure of the Personality and the same physical body, although
more often than not this is stronger in the pre-adamic man than in
the adamic. (pp. 108-109)

<As I understand this, he's saying that because of the pre-adamic
condition of being soley and exclusively 'physical', their bodies are
more hardened and earthy than Adamics, whose bodies are 'lighter' and
less physically bound.>

By identifying himself with the `I' of his Personality, Adam lost
consciousness of his real `I' and fell from the Eden that was his
original condition into the same condition as the pre-adamics… The
two humanities, coming from two different creative processes, later
mingled on the level of organic life on Earth… From then on, the
coexistence of these two human types, and the competition which was
the result of this, became the norm…we can see that throughout the
centuries, even in our own day, adamics in their post-fall condition,
have been are are generally in an inferior position to the pre-
adamics.

<So, through the Fall of Adam -- by separating himself from God -- he
finds himself in the same environment as the pre-adamics. Being that
pre-adamics are, basically, soul-less and anthropoids (animalistic
bipeds), Adamics are at a disadvantage in their Fallen state by being
in a position similar to a 'fish out of water'.>

…For the moment we will restrict ourselves to repeating that
contemporary adamic man, having lost contact with his higher centres
and therefore with his real `I', appears practically the same as his
pre-adamic counterpart. However, unlike the latter, he still has his
higher centres, which ensure that he has the possibility of following
the way of esoteric evolution. At present, pre-adamic man is deprived
of this possibility, but it will be given to him if adamic humanity
develops as it should during the era of the Holy Spirit. (p. 129)

<Christ restores the Adamic race and we receive, through regeneration
and rebirth in Christ, the reactivation of our higher 'centers' and
assuming the rightful position (dominion and service) we were created
to fill. Basically, Mouravieff is telling us that there were
originally two races that evolved on the earth, and that these two
races, while being physically identical in many ways, were very
different from a soul point of view. It seems that one had the
potential to develop a sovereign and integral soul in this lifetime,
while the others were empty cylinders in comparison and were destined
to wait another "turn of the wheel" or cosmic cycle. The adamic race
is the race that suffered the Fall, which meant the breaking of the
connection between the God - higher centers (giving access to higher
knowing/awareness) - and the lower centers (which govern physical
existence), and which left adamic man in the same "playground" as pre-
adamic man. Who the Adamic and Pre-Adamic races are, respectively, seems to be the real issue.>

Gnosis
By: Boris Mouravieff
http://www.praxisresearch.org/bookstore/gnosis_books.

[Telos]

Dude...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your first source contains some of the worst misinformation I've ever seen. My favorite quotation from that has got to be:

“The purveyors of evolution have lied, shamelessly fabricating false evidence, because they prefer a primordial ooze as their distant relatives as opposed to the power of an Almighty Creator. Darwinian evolution is an unscientific religion. Nobody has ever proven the Bible wrong, especially science. Many have tried to disprove the Bible, but the Bible is the anvil that has worn out many hammers.”

Sorry, but reality is not a popularity contest. Reality does not care what you prefer. The evidence for evolution (common descent of all species) is simply overwhelming. The simplistic view of evolution presented in the article is laughable. Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. Furthermore, science doesn’t care about the Bible, and whether it “proves” it wrong or not. The only thing that evolution demonstrated is that maintaining that Genesis is to be interpreted literally is foolhardy. It simply cannot be. In any case, I think the important message to walk away with from Genesis is that there is a bit of God in all of us.

[bell-the-cat]

"In the first volume of `Gnosis', we already referred several times
to the coexistence of two essentially different races: one of Men,
and another of Anthropoids. We must emphasize the fact that from the
esoteric point of view the latter term has no derogatory meaning.

This sort of rubbish has a long ancestry. It reminds me of the theories of certain Christian theorists that appeared shortly after the publication of Darwin's "Theory of Evolution", and that attempted to explain away the now obviously vast difference between the biblical time-scale of the world and real geological time by saying that Adam and Eve were not actualy the first humans, but that there was another race of humans who were around long before Adam was created. And all the dinosaurs and evolution and so on were associated with those earlier humans.

[Anonymouse]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your first source contains some of the worst misinformation I've ever seen. My favorite quotation from that has got to be:

“The purveyors of evolution have lied, shamelessly fabricating false evidence, because they prefer a primordial ooze as their distant relatives as opposed to the power of an Almighty Creator. Darwinian evolution is an unscientific religion. Nobody has ever proven the Bible wrong, especially science. Many have tried to disprove the Bible, but the Bible is the anvil that has worn out many hammers.”

Sorry, but reality is not a popularity contest. Reality does not care what you prefer. The evidence for evolution (common descent of all species) is simply overwhelming. The simplistic view of evolution presented in the article is laughable. Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. Furthermore, science doesn’t care about the Bible, and whether it “proves” it wrong or not. The only thing that evolution demonstrated is that maintaining that Genesis is to be interpreted literally is foolhardy. It simply cannot be. In any case, I think the important message to walk away with from Genesis is that there is a bit of God in all of us.

I think in a world of uncertainty one shouldn't be eager to jump on one bandwagon and proclaim it as holy writ, and the other one as nonsense. The 'evidence' for evolution is very much distorted and misleading, especially since the idea itself is a philosophy of naturalism, a religion of sorts, just like Christianity, but only using different criterea and cirriculum. In the world of metaphysical assumptions it is no more or no less valid than belief in the Bible, as it is to the common denominator a belief system.

[IAmMadAtAC]

In the world of metaphysical assumptions it is no more or no less valid than belief in the Bible, as it is to the common denominator a belief system.

Actually, I'm just finishing up a semester of bio class, in which we learned all about evolution, and from what we learned there really weren't any assumptions being made. The fossil record clearly shows development and evolution, and in some cases evolution is a complete fact. It's definition is the change in genotypes across generations, and that definitely happens. We have even witnessed adaptations and changes in animals to different species, all which lends high credance to evolution. We even had a guy come to our school, an extremely well respected biologist who wrote the major biology high school text book, to talk. He not only explained how there is no factual basis behind what is known as "intelligent design" (as in, that there is factual evidence behind the notion that an intelligent force- that is God or otherwise- is directly responsible for making all species). On top of all that, he is a religious man! He is saying that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, though most people see it that way and therefor are either completely behind one or another. Whether God started it or not, Darwinian evolution is an extremely supported theory. And don't be misled by it being called a theory either- because it means a much different thing in science. In science a theory is an idea backed up by many tests and experiments, as opposed to what we think of it as, just a random guess. Now if only I could do this well on my bio final Monday...

[Telos]

“I think in a world of uncertainty one shouldn't be eager to jump on one bandwagon and proclaim it as holy writ, and the other one as nonsense.”

Yeah, I read the thread where you discussed evolution and religion with loseyourname. I regret to inform you that you lost quite badly. No one here is saying that the Bible is nonsense. As a Christian, I certainly am not. It takes spiritual maturity to accept the reality of the Bible—it is not the word of God, but rather an attempt by man to describe a God that I believe to be real. Heck, the Bible is not even a reliable historical document prior to Kings.

What exactly is your problem with evolution? You have offered no scientific challenge to it. The only reason you oppose it is because it conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis. Your understanding of evolution is nebulous, at best, so read up on it. Hopefully it will prove enlightening.

“The 'evidence' for evolution is very much distorted and misleading, especially since the idea itself is a philosophy of naturalism, a religion of sorts, just like Christianity, but only using different criterea and cirriculum.”

Methodological naturalism is great—you should study its principles sometime—but it is not a religion. The evidence for evolution is not distorted and misleading, either. I notice that you do not object to microevolution. Macroevolution is just microevolution over a longer timespan. It is just the accumulation of small changes wrought by microevolution. The only possible barrier I can think of to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution is time, and evolution has lots of time to work with: billions of years. Evolution is unfalsifiable? Well, propose a scientifically testable hypothesis that discusses the proposed barrier to macroevolution, and then, after testing it, if it turns out that you’re correct, I’ll gladly admit that evolutionary biologists really messed up. You’d probably even win the Nobel Prize. Overthrowing the overriding paradigm of the era would surely earn you praise.

“In the world of metaphysical assumptions it is no more or no less valid than belief in the Bible, as it is to the common denominator a belief system.”

Who’s saying that belief in the message of the Bible is not valid? Your literal interpretations of it are simplistic. God is simple? God can’t use a complex process like evolution to create? God is limited in what He can and cannot do? God must obey what the Bible says? These are dangerous claims. I worship a God, not a book. The Bible is not God—it is merely a guide written by fallible men, and so of course, as is to be expected, we see errors throughout.

[Anonymouse]

Actually, I'm just finishing up a semester of bio class, in which we learned all about evolution, and from what we learned there really weren't any assumptions being made. The fossil record clearly shows development and evolution, and in some cases evolution is a complete fact. It's definition is the change in genotypes across generations, and that definitely happens. We have even witnessed adaptations and changes in animals to different species, all which lends high credance to evolution. We even had a guy come to our school, an extremely well respected biologist who wrote the major biology high school text book, to talk. He not only explained how there is no factual basis behind what is known as "intelligent design" (as in, that there is factual evidence behind the notion that an intelligent force- that is God or otherwise- is directly responsible for making all species). On top of all that, he is a religious man! He is saying that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, though most people see it that way and therefor are either completely behind one or another. Whether God started it or not, Darwinian evolution is an extremely supported theory. And don't be misled by it being called a theory either- because it means a much different thing in science. In science a theory is an idea backed up by many tests and experiments, as opposed to what we think of it as, just a random guess. Now if only I could do this well on my bio final Monday...

The fossil record doesn't show anything other than what the imaginations of evolutionists say it does. It used to be believed that there was a gradual change in evolution, but since intermediate forms could not be supported, the theory of punctuated equilibria had to be brought up as a savior for evolution.

Now as far as mutations and adaptations are concerned they are all within species. It is important that one doesn't misunderstand, "evolution" is a misleading term and the confusion that exists is more due to semantics than the content of the said theory. Micro and macro evolution are quite different. While we may observe changes on a micro level, to go beyond that and project it into a macro level is beyond us.

[Anonymouse]

“I think in a world of uncertainty one shouldn't be eager to jump on one bandwagon and proclaim it as holy writ, and the other one as nonsense.”

Yeah, I read the thread where you discussed evolution and religion with loseyourname. I regret to inform you that you lost quite badly. No one here is saying that the Bible is nonsense. As a Christian, I certainly am not. It takes spiritual maturity to accept the reality of the Bible—it is not the word of God, but rather an attempt by man to describe a God that I believe to be real. Heck, the Bible is not even a reliable historical document prior to Kings.

What exactly is your problem with evolution? You have offered no scientific challenge to it. The only reason you oppose it is because it conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis. Your understanding of evolution is nebulous, at best, so read up on it. Hopefully it will prove enlightening.

“The 'evidence' for evolution is very much distorted and misleading, especially since the idea itself is a philosophy of naturalism, a religion of sorts, just like Christianity, but only using different criterea and cirriculum.”

Methodological naturalism is great—you should study its principles sometime—but it is not a religion. The evidence for evolution is not distorted and misleading, either. I notice that you do not object to microevolution. Macroevolution is just microevolution over a longer timespan. It is just the accumulation of small changes wrought by microevolution. The only possible barrier I can think of to prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution is time, and evolution has lots of time to work with: billions of years. Evolution is unfalsifiable? Well, propose a scientifically testable hypothesis that discusses the proposed barrier to macroevolution, and then, after testing it, if it turns out that you’re correct, I’ll gladly admit that evolutionary biologists really messed up. You’d probably even win the Nobel Prize. Overthrowing the overriding paradigm of the era would surely earn you praise.

“In the world of metaphysical assumptions it is no more or no less valid than belief in the Bible, as it is to the common denominator a belief system.”

Who’s saying that belief in the message of the Bible is not valid? Your literal interpretations of it are simplistic. God is simple? God can’t use a complex process like evolution to create? God is limited in what He can and cannot do? God must obey what the Bible says? These are dangerous claims. I worship a God, not a book. The Bible is not God—it is merely a guide written by fallible men, and so of course, as is to be expected, we see errors throughout.

I am glad that you have so religiously followed my discussions with loser in which of course you would believe I lost. As a believer in evolution no one would admit or believe that I somehow won, would they? Ideological prisms are not held by reason but by appeal to emotions. One thing I have not done is argue for God or the Bible. I have vaguely referred to creation but I have nonetheless left it a mystery. You on the other hand assume and go off on a rant about God and the Bible. I have no point to make there. In fact I have never even used the Bible in my arguments even in the thread with loser which you supposedly claimed to have read and now you call me on "literal interpretation"? You need to stop making things up.

However, as much as atheists and evolutionists and others like to bash Christians and Bible Thumpers for somehow claiming to know the truth, evolutionists themselves get out of hand in this regard. Hypocrisy knows no bounds, but unless it is on the other side one rarely checks thyself.

As far as your statement about me offering "scientific challenges" to evolution, that is misleading. It is not my job to offer "scientific challenges" but rather to point out the lack of it. The burden is on those who assert the fact therefore it is on them to offer those. In my position one can only critique and poke holes and if you follow the good advise of Socrates you would do the same instead of clinging to this "Evolution is fact" dogma.

Methodogical naturalism, evolution or the scientific revolution - call it what you will. It is a religion if looked at from a certain perspective. Certainly it is not a religion in the traditional sense but it is a metaphysical assumption no matter how much you can claim to deny. For the scientific method to work, we start with an assumption of the criteria we use to discern facts about the natural world. The scientific method must first be held to be true before it is used as a tool, in other words the root of it all is belief. I know this quakes the prisons we choose to live in, and is discomforting to the "science is fact" religionists who like to have some concreteness and stability, but it is wasted.

[Telos]

“The fossil record doesn't show anything other than what the imaginations of evolutionists say it does.”

Alright, if the fossil record isn’t enough, what do you make of the molecular evidence? I presume you have read several scientific papers published in journals before you reached your conclusion, right?

“It used to be believed that there was a gradual change in evolution, but since intermediate forms could not be supported, the theory of punctuated equilibria had to be brought up as a savior for evolution.”

Actually, the idea of punctuated equilibrium can be found in the book Origin of Species. Granted, it’s not called “punctuated equilibrium,” but the idea is there. The idea was not new—Gould simply over-hyped it and treated it as “new.” Surely you’ve read Origin of Species?

“Now as far as mutations and adaptations are concerned they are all within species.”

Are you saying that speciation does not occur? I’ve got several examples, if you’d like to hear them.

“Micro and macro evolution are quite different.”

Nope, actually they’re not. They’re the exact same process, except over different time scales. Drawing a distinction is actually unnecessary. It’s like drawing a distinction between micro-walking (walking to the end of the block) and macro-walking (walking all the way into the next city)--it’s still the same process: walking. Nice try though.

“While we may observe changes on a micro level, to go beyond that and project it into a macro level is beyond us.”

Great—now all you have to do is propose the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution and you’ve got a Nobel Prize on your hands. Otherwise, what you’ve got on your hands is a baseless assertion.

“I am glad that you have so religiously followed my discussions with loser in which of course you would believe I lost.”

I know you lost because, to put it simply: you did.

“As a believer in evolution no one would admit or believe that I somehow won, would they?”

I would admit that you had won—if you had actually won.

“Ideological prisms are not held by reason but by appeal to emotions.”

Objectively, the defense of your view was rather poor. What are you talking about?

“One thing I have not done is argue for God or the Bible.”

Nope, you certainly haven’t.

“I have vaguely referred to creation but I have nonetheless left it a mystery.”

That’s because it is a mystery—creationism is pure crap. No one has yet produced a scientific theory of creation. If you’ve got one, I’d like to hear it.

“You on the other hand assume and go off on a rant about God and the Bible.”

The topic of this thread is Christianity, is it not? What exactly is your gripe with a discussion of the Bible and God?

“I have no point to make there.”

Or anywhere, for that matter.

“In fact I have never even used the Bible in my arguments even in the thread with loser which you supposedly claimed to have read and now you call me on "literal interpretation"?”

Alright. Do you interpret it literally?

“You need to stop making things up.”

Do you interpret Genesis literally?

“However, as much as atheists and evolutionists and others like to bash Christians and Bible Thumpers for somehow claiming to know the truth, evolutionists themselves get out of hand in this regard.”

Sure, when the opposition refutes you, of course, suddenly, they’re “out of hand.” Grow up.

“Hypocrisy knows no bounds, but unless it is on the other side one rarely checks thyself.”

Who’s being a hypocrite?

“As far as your statement about me offering "scientific challenges" to evolution, that is misleading.”

No, it isn’t.

“It is not my job to offer "scientific challenges" but rather to point out the lack of it. The burden is on those who assert the fact therefore it is on them to offer those. In my position one can only critique and poke holes and if you follow the good advise of Socrates you would do the same instead of clinging to this "Evolution is fact" dogma.”

You are sadly mistaken. Take a refresher course on the philosophy of logic. You’re asserting the existence of some barrier between microevolution and macroevolution. Well, produce the hypothesis! If you weren’t, then you’d agree that macroevolution occurs. What is this barrier? The burden is on you to demonstrate that this barrier exists. If I asserted that flying pink unicorns existed in space, I wouldn’t expect you to demonstrate that they don’t exist. It would be up to me to demonstrate that they do exist. Understand how this works?

“Methodogical naturalism, evolution or the scientific revolution - call it what you will.”

Whoa. Seriously consider taking that course on the philosophy of logic. Are you familiar with the fallacy of equivocation?

“It is a religion if looked at from a certain perspective.”

What perspective? The perspective of utter ignorance?

“Certainly it is not a religion in the traditional sense but it is a metaphysical assumption no matter how much you can claim to deny.”

Repetition does not make you right. Get over it.

“The scientific method must first be held to be true before it is used as a tool, in other words the root of it all is belief.”

This is a logical fallacy: once again, you’re equivocating on the concepts of “trust” and “faith.” You’re conflating trust with faith. People tend to put their trust in science, because it doesn’t tend to let you down. They put their trust in it because of evidence that it works. You put your faith in something despite the lack of evidence.

“I know this quakes the prisons we choose to live in, and is discomforting to the "science is fact" religionists who like to have some concreteness and stability, but it is wasted.”

Empty rhetoric whilst caricaturing scientists? Your maturity has reached a whole new level.

You know, you have all these issues with epistemology when discussing evolutionary theory. I’m sure you wouldn’t have these issues when thinking about, let’s say, the germ theory of disease, because surely you take medicine when you get sick, right? Surely you’ve been vaccinated? Do you believe that the germ theory of disease is not indicative of reality? It’s based on the same principles of methodological naturalism. Curious business, that.