Darwin had a lot of darkness in his heart, as seen in his notebooks and letters. He was a terror to animals, a proud hunter, killing many and consuming many for sport.
Have you never read about Darwin’s HUGE regret? Please say if you haven’t and I’ll post it here in a new thread. It’s one of the most underquoted of the devastating critiques of Darwin that really is impregnable. Why? Because they are Darwin’s words themselves. Do you dare inquire, Klax?
[Aside: it’s a passage that is rarely quoted, but does indeed come from Darwin. The source where I found this quote is the kind of place where “private religious colleges” and “protestant apologetics” simply pay no attention.]
Marshall McLuhan is the name I’ve dropped here already. He was certainly one of the finest geniuses of the 20th century. And the fact that he was a devout Catholic, while many of his followers didn’t know it (because he wasn’t “evangelical” about it!), makes his work all the more relatable to people like those here at BioLogos, who also believe in God. Maybe you will check & see, Martin.
As for me, speaking as a kind of “social philosopher” about it, Darwin simply cannot be considered “heroic”. Darwin’s views of humanity were “dehumanizing”; they lowered humanity, instead of raising us up. He dis-inspired millions of people, leading them to the view, formulated years later by people in the “field” of “evolutionary religious studies”, that not only humanity, but religion itself was simply a “natural evolution” without any divine presence or existence. That was Darwin’s view, for which I for one do not treat him as “my hero”.
How about you, Klax, is Darwin really your hero, as you hinted?
Thanks for your post. I was raised loosely Anglican, so please let that provide context.
“the largest Lutheran and probably also Anglican churches can list a continuous ‘apostolic succession’.”
I do not think this is accurate. I’ve asked Anglicans before and they balk. And they frankly know next to nothing about the history of the Christian Church, in most cases. Which Lutheran official document or record of apostolic succession could you point to in this regard?
It’s a simple question that Protestants sometimes hate: Does the Church teach apostolic succession through the life and teachings of Christ: Yes or No?
“If some later teaching is in conflict with the teaching of Jesus & his apostles, it should be rejected no matter who the preacher, priest or bishop is.”
If so, many (not a small #) of the Protestant “churches” around would be required to close, and many Protestant clergy “defrocked”. (Goodness, isn’t it about time the “united church” got rid of self-proclaimed atheist Gretta Vosper!) The schisms generated by the anti-Catholic “reformation” in Europe, as well as the inability for Protestants to return to the historical Church after the counter-Reformation, seen particularly in the USA with its “denominationalism”, are still being stoked by those putting forward “some later teaching in conflict”.
Example: In one country where I lived, one nationality of visiting people had set up 9 or 10 protestant churches in the city, for only about 500 people diaspora - they had so many ministers who wanted to be missionaries that they had to compete with each other for small group “religion”! This was fragmentation and division inherent in the teachings themselves that these “ministers” were espousing because they couldn’t unite themselves.
“Even if we can agree that the teachings of Jesus and his apostles are the standard, there is always the question of correct interpretation.”
This is why Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don’t often participate in forums like BioLogos. Please go into an Eastern Orthodox church if you previously have not, and if you can find one nearby, before figuring out how to try to formulate the right question in response: why is that?
“At least the Eastern Orthodox are still ruled by ecumenical councils, so I would credit them with being the most like the earliest churches.” - Mitchell
The use of the Confederate flag in the modern era is part of the Lost Cause myth which is a toxic and racist movement. I don’t see any parallel to Lutheranism in the modern era.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
24
What, that Luther wasn’t a murderous Jew hater because they rejected his toxic theology fallacy which hundreds of millions believe to this day? That calling yourself a Lutheran Christian is an oxymoron?
Hello and thanks for the invitation NickolaosPappas (Nick).
Okay, I will post Darwin’s words about this shortly. Would appreciate hearing back from Klax too, as I couldn’t catch the nuance in his text & question. Does he treat Darwin “heroically” (whether compared with how Lutherans treat Luther “heroically”) or not? I’m curious to hear the answer, seeing that it sticks to the “heroic history” visible in the naming of a few “denominations” of Protestantism, as related to the OP.
[ETA: this from Klax above: “He’s [Darwin’s] the only hero in that eponymous list. His followers are just rational in following his clear, giant, courageous, brilliant, heroic footsteps.”]
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
27
No hint Gregory. Of course he is, deathbed regret and all. I have no need to check out McLuhan or anyone else either thanks. And being a sport hunter makes you dark hearted does it? Anything else? Or is that the lot? And the correct Darwinian also later Freudian view of humanity, as an entirely evolved creature; an animal, the most advanced animal, with genetic morality receptors hard wired for experience is what humanizes us, grounds our humanity, enables our humanity and for us to deconstruct our appallingly ignorant religious conditioning which comes as the terrible price for the evolutionary advantages our sacred taste receptor confers.
Indeed. Of course (as always with ‘incredulity’), It’s never wise to bet against the stupidity of humanity. Seen recently: “I’m going to have to stop asking people ‘how stupid can you be?’ because too many of them are taking it as a challenge.”
This doesn’t sound right. I would want to see your source for this. It sounds more like something that probably circulates in anti-evolution circles.
Some may have historically used them that way. But not Darwin. In fact he was distressed by the treatment of slaves he observed on his voyage, and hoped his theory would put the lie to the notion held by some that they came from “superior stock” or “different races” than others.
Not that somebody can’t have inspiring and loving ideas in one context and be cruel in another … he would have been a product of his own time like all of us are. But from what I’ve read and heard of him, the ‘delight in cruelty’ … ‘heart of darkness’ stuff sounds more like convenient ideological ad hominem.
A child who persists in running into the street doesn’t deserve a swat on the bottom? And still persisting rebelliously will be struck and suffer permanently.