OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 03:47:35 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Vatican to re-evaluate Darwin  (Read 3734 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« on: February 11, 2009, 03:14:07 AM »

Quote
(ANSA) - Vatican City, February 10 - The Vatican is preparing to re-evaluate 19th century British naturalist Charles Darwin 200 years after his birth and 150 years since the publication of his landmark work, On the Origin of Species.

As opposed to the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin's work and next month will examine his theory of evolution in depth from the point of view of Christian faith.

This will be done at a March 3-7 conference sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Culture to be attended by a host of international scholars and theologians.

Source

Theistic evolution seems to be quite popular within Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., so it will be interesting to see exactly what, if anything, comes out of this conference.


Also, if you feel the urge to debate Evolution vs. Creationism vs. etc...

Creationism vs Evolution
Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
Creationism/evolution among Eastern Orthodox laity
New movie “Expelled” challenges Darwinian theory
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,816



« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2009, 03:37:20 AM »

Quote
As opposed to the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin's work and next month will examine his theory of evolution in depth from the point of view of Christian faith.

I was under the impression that this had already been done by the Roman Catholic Church, and that they'd come to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with accepting Darwin's theory... why the decision for a re-evaluation, I wonder?
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2009, 03:41:23 AM »

Quote
As opposed to the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin's work
Actually, I don't think the Anglican Church ever condemned Darwin's work.
Perhaps Ebor or Keble can confirm or deny this.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2009, 08:29:33 AM »

Quote
As opposed to the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin's work
Actually, I don't think the Anglican Church ever condemned Darwin's work.
Perhaps Ebor or Keble can confirm or deny this.

It would rather odd, as the Archbishop of Canteberry gave his personal approval (and permission) to bury Charlie in Westminister (where, as an agnostic, he doesn't belong).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2009, 02:02:01 PM »

I've looked around a bit, and I can't find any Official Condemnation of evolution. I can find a lot of clerics of the period objecting, of course. Now, part of the reason for the former is that we really don't believe anything  Smiley Roll Eyes Grin and therefore don't as a rule issue that sort of statement very often. Or if I may be cranky in a different direction, Anglican churches don't feel the need to have an Official Position on everything.

As far as burying is concerned: the Anglican rules are quite different. In the Episcopal Church there is a specific rite for burial of a non-Christian, and as far as I know there is no rule about who can be buried in a Christian cemetery. Finally--

and I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at the bad theology here--  Shocked

once you are baptized, you are a Christian forever. You may become a bad Christian, or an unobservant Christian, or even an apostate Christian, but that baptism never comes off.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2009, 05:54:48 PM »



and I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at the bad theology here--  Shocked

once you are baptized, you are a Christian forever. You may become a bad Christian, or an unobservant Christian, or even an apostate Christian, but that baptism never comes off.


I agree. OBAB -- once baptized, always baptized. Grin
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ignatius
Baptacathadox
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic > Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,690


My Son Aidan... :-)


« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2009, 06:16:36 PM »

I've looked around a bit, and I can't find any Official Condemnation of evolution. I can find a lot of clerics of the period objecting, of course. Now, part of the reason for the former is that we really don't believe anything  Smiley Roll Eyes Grin and therefore don't as a rule issue that sort of statement very often. Or if I may be cranky in a different direction, Anglican churches don't feel the need to have an Official Position on everything.

As far as burying is concerned: the Anglican rules are quite different. In the Episcopal Church there is a specific rite for burial of a non-Christian, and as far as I know there is no rule about who can be buried in a Christian cemetery. Finally--

and I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at the bad theology here--  Shocked

once you are baptized, you are a Christian forever. You may become a bad Christian, or an unobservant Christian, or even an apostate Christian, but that baptism never comes off.


Is there not only 'one baptism' or is this suggesting Once Saved, Always Saved?
Logged

St Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.): “I think then that the one goal of all who are really and truly serving the Lord ought to be to bring back to union the churches who have at different times and in diverse manners divided from one another.”
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,883



« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2009, 06:22:22 PM »

I agree. OBAB -- once baptized, always baptized. Grin

Super cute post!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2009, 06:34:57 PM »

I've looked around a bit, and I can't find any Official Condemnation of evolution. I can find a lot of clerics of the period objecting, of course. Now, part of the reason for the former is that we really don't believe anything  Smiley Roll Eyes Grin and therefore don't as a rule issue that sort of statement very often. Or if I may be cranky in a different direction, Anglican churches don't feel the need to have an Official Position on everything.

As far as burying is concerned: the Anglican rules are quite different. In the Episcopal Church there is a specific rite for burial of a non-Christian, and as far as I know there is no rule about who can be buried in a Christian cemetery. Finally--

and I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at the bad theology here--  Shocked

once you are baptized, you are a Christian forever. You may become a bad Christian, or an unobservant Christian, or even an apostate Christian, but that baptism never comes off.


LOL. Shocked about bad theology.  I wish the Church of England was so capable.  But the Anglicans have shown that they will ordain just about anyone bishop.  They should have learned with David Jenkins at Yorkminster Cathedral.

Can you explain why baptism guarentees you a Christian burial, in a Church even, despite what has happened between baptism and death?

Even the Greeks, who get charged with putting nation over Creed, are no so foolish: when Kazantzakis' fans tried to get him buried in Metropolis of Athens, the Archbishop of All Greece said, unlike the Archbishop of Canteberry, "not in my Church."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2009, 08:47:44 PM »

I've looked around a bit, and I can't find any Official Condemnation of evolution. I can find a lot of clerics of the period objecting, of course. Now, part of the reason for the former is that we really don't believe anything  Smiley Roll Eyes Grin and therefore don't as a rule issue that sort of statement very often. Or if I may be cranky in a different direction, Anglican churches don't feel the need to have an Official Position on everything.

As far as burying is concerned: the Anglican rules are quite different. In the Episcopal Church there is a specific rite for burial of a non-Christian, and as far as I know there is no rule about who can be buried in a Christian cemetery. Finally--

and I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at the bad theology here--  Shocked

once you are baptized, you are a Christian forever. You may become a bad Christian, or an unobservant Christian, or even an apostate Christian, but that baptism never comes off.


Is there not only 'one baptism' or is this suggesting Once Saved, Always Saved?

Some Protestants have been known to get themselves baptized more than once.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,816



« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2009, 09:33:10 PM »

Quote
Some Protestants have been known to get themselves baptized more than once.

Guilty. I was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant, and then baptized with a Wesleyan Holiness Church when I was 18. The funny thing is, quite a few people would have told me to get baptized a third time when I became Orthodox!
Logged

Yes, yes, youth is wasted on the young. And so is accumulated experience wasted on the old, the positives of modernism wasted on moderns, the beauty of Christianity wasted on Christians, the utility of scholarship wasted on scholars, and on and on.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2009, 09:39:04 PM »

Quote
(ANSA) - Vatican City, February 10 - The Vatican is preparing to re-evaluate 19th century British naturalist Charles Darwin 200 years after his birth and 150 years since the publication of his landmark work, On the Origin of Species.

As opposed to the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin's work and next month will examine his theory of evolution in depth from the point of view of Christian faith.

This will be done at a March 3-7 conference sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Culture to be attended by a host of international scholars and theologians.

Source

Theistic evolution seems to be quite popular within Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc., so it will be interesting to see exactly what, if anything, comes out of this conference.


Also, if you feel the urge to debate Evolution vs. Creationism vs. etc...

Creationism vs Evolution
Evolutionist, ID, or Creationist? Cast Your Vote!
Creationism/evolution among Eastern Orthodox laity
New movie “Expelled” challenges Darwinian theory


I am very interested in what the outcome will be.  I think being critical of Darwinism is a good thing. The hard thing is developing an alternative........which will be time consuming. I already made up my mind years ago, that there is something wrong with people being dogmatic about something that will change 5, 10, 20, 30 years in the future. And I blame this on predictions that are based on too many assumptions. Just like Scripture is able to be interpreted in many different ways......I have learned that the evidence of nature can be interpretated in more than one way......and depending on ones narrative, will determine the angle/spin of how one will interpret the evidence. The less assumptions we base our predictions/theories on, the more stable the prediction will be.



But looking at Darwins faith. He was raised as a Unitarian, but his father had him Baptized in the Anglican Church. His wife(also his first cousin) was a strong Unitarian believer. Later in Life, around 1828(give or take some years) he became an Anglican(I think, I am speculating here), after reading "Exposition of the Creed" by Pearson, he went to Christ Church College where he tried to be a Church of England clergyman. This is where he read a work called "Natural Theology: Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity" by William Paley. It was Charles Darwin's natural science professor John Stevens Henslow that tought Charles everything he knew about natural science. It also should be known that John Stevens Henslow was a Creationist! Another major influence on Darwin around this time was Adam Sedgwick (another Creationist). He was the professor of Geology around 1818. Henslow and Sedwick were both Catastrophists. I am also a Catastrophist. What changed Charles Darwin's mind back in the direction of his grandfather, was a book he was told not to read or not to accept certain views. And that book was Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology".

Around 1831, Darwin traveled on his famous trip. And he read that book during that time. It was the millions and millions of years evolutionary view in geology that gave him the idea that one species could change into another over millions and millions of years. So what his grandfather didn't explain, his grandson was now able to put into words.

 Charles Darwin attended church services until the death of his child Annie, that's when he swore off religion. After the death of his child, he stopped attending church. (around 1851 A.D.) It also should be known that both of Charles grandfathers were members of the "Lunatics Society", There were alot of Athiests in this group as well.

Erasmus Darwin(one of Charles Darwin's grandfathers) believed in the theory of evolution before Charles did. To be honest, this theory can be found in ancient pagan greek philosophy. But his granfather wrote a book called "Zoonomia" (the Laws of Organic life). Two years ago, I found this work online. I don't know if it is still up or not. but it was published around 1794.

His grandfather also wrote a Poem in 1802 called "The Temple of Nature". So Charles Darwin didn't create these views from a vacumme. These ideas were already tought by his grandfather. Now his grandfather never explained how one species turned into another, but decades later, his grandson did in his well known book.

But despite all this. I was told that Charlse Darwin himself advocated a form of Theistic evolution in a preface of one of the editions of "The Origin of species". If this is true, then he wasn't as Atheistic as some may think. He could of became an Agnostic after the death of his daughter, but I don't think he was an Atheist.


But it would be interesting to see the conclusion of what they have to say. I know that Darwin's former professors "Henslow & Sedgwick" were upset with him at first, when he came out with his book. but alot of christian intellectuals either lost their faith or slowly adapted to a theistic evolutionary modal. Now that the belief has been around for over 150 years. Creationism has enough history to look at in order to form a counter system. So there is no reason for christians or any religious group to loose faith over something like this.






JNORM888

Most of the details in dates & events came from the book "evolution's fatal fruit" by Tom Derosa.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 10:00:00 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,883



« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2009, 10:52:38 PM »

Guilty. I was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant, and then baptized with a Wesleyan Holiness Church when I was 18. The funny thing is, quite a few people would have told me to get baptized a third time when I became Orthodox!

First the Latins attempted to baptize me when I was an infant.  Then the Southern Baptists "baptized" me as a 15 year old, although this was by my fault.  I am looking forward to receiving my first valid and true baptism as an Orthodox Christian in about 10 months, God willing.

BTW, you would not have been baptized a third time.  It would have been the first.  They simply imparted grace where there was none before!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2009, 12:07:35 AM »

Guilty. I was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant, and then baptized with a Wesleyan Holiness Church when I was 18. The funny thing is, quite a few people would have told me to get baptized a third time when I became Orthodox!

First the Latins attempted to baptize me when I was an infant.  Then the Southern Baptists "baptized" me as a 15 year old, although this was by my fault.  I am looking forward to receiving my first valid and true baptism as an Orthodox Christian in about 10 months, God willing.

BTW, you would not have been baptized a third time.  It would have been the first.  They simply imparted grace where there was none before!

couldn't have been totally graceless, because you are here.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2009, 08:01:00 AM »

Guilty. I was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant, and then baptized with a Wesleyan Holiness Church when I was 18. The funny thing is, quite a few people would have told me to get baptized a third time when I became Orthodox!

First the Latins attempted to baptize me when I was an infant.  Then the Southern Baptists "baptized" me as a 15 year old, although this was by my fault.  I am looking forward to receiving my first valid and true baptism as an Orthodox Christian in about 10 months, God willing.

BTW, you would not have been baptized a third time.  It would have been the first.  They simply imparted grace where there was none before!

I'm not going to get into convert anabaptism; it doesn't really matter for the the current discussion whether your personal theology has swayed from catholic to anabaptist to Cyprianite catholic. We are all catholics about this: "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism". Whichever of your various baptisms "counts" is yours forever, no matter how many times you forsake it, and no matter whether you forsake it for a "better" church or no church at all.
Logged
mathetes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Believer
Jurisdiction: MJAA
Posts: 161



« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2009, 02:21:49 PM »

Finally--

and I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at the bad theology here--  Shocked

once you are baptized, you are a Christian forever. You may become a bad Christian, or an unobservant Christian, or even an apostate Christian, but that baptism never comes off.


Aren't we getting into some oxymorons here with "bad Christian," "unobservant Christian," and "apostate Christian"?  If a Christian, by definition, is a servant or love slave of Christ, whoever doesn't serve and obey Christ isn't a Christian.  Aren't evil, worthless servants ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire?

I'm confused!   Huh
Logged

"Iron sharpens iron, and a man sharpens the countenance of his friend" (Proverbs 27:17 OSB).

"The future isn't what it used to be" (Yogi Berra).
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2009, 02:44:02 PM »

Finally--

and I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at the bad theology here--  Shocked

once you are baptized, you are a Christian forever. You may become a bad Christian, or an unobservant Christian, or even an apostate Christian, but that baptism never comes off.


Aren't we getting into some oxymorons here with "bad Christian," "unobservant Christian," and "apostate Christian"?  If a Christian, by definition, is a servant or love slave of Christ, whoever doesn't serve and obey Christ isn't a Christian.  Aren't evil, worthless servants ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire?

A servant is someone is who bound to serve; a bad servant is one who does so poorly or not at all. We as Christians are all bound to serve our Lord, and all of us do it badly to some extent.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2009, 02:47:08 PM »

Quote
As opposed to the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin's work
Actually, I don't think the Anglican Church ever condemned Darwin's work.
Perhaps Ebor or Keble can confirm or deny this.

I also have not come across any official statement on behalf of the Anglican Communion condemning Darwin's work.  There were cases of clergyman either for or against it.  There is the famous debate between Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford and Thomas Huxley of which no transcript survives as far as I know.  There were articles and cartoons and such, but no, the Anglicans did not come out and say anything official against Darwin or The Origin of Species or anything else in that line.

I confess that I'm quite curious as to where the idea that we did so comes from.  Huh

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2009, 03:24:58 PM »

I am very interested in what the outcome will be.  I think being critical of Darwinism is a good thing.

Out of curiosity, have you read any of Darwin's works in the original? 

Quote
His wife(also his first cousin) was a strong Unitarian believer.

From my reading, while the Darwin/Wedgwood families did have Unitarian and "Freethinker" beliefs, Emma Darwin is reported to have been a devout Christian.

Quote
It also should be known that John Stevens Henslow was a Creationist! Another major influence on Darwin around this time was Adam Sedgwick (another Creationist).

Are you using this term in the modern sense such as to counter evolution? If so, how do you mean it to apply to those in the early 19th century?

Quote
What changed Charles Darwin's mind back in the direction of his grandfather, was a book he was told not to read or not to accept certain views. And that book was Charles Lyell's "Principles of Geology".

By whom was he told to not read the book, if this is in fact the case? Is this from the Derosa book, that he was told to not read it?  Thank you. The work was published in three volumes from 1830-1833.  Darwin was given a copy of Vol. 1 by the captain of the Beagle and received Vol. 2 while on that voyage (December 1831-October 1836) while in South America.

Quote
Charles Darwin attended church services until the death of his child Annie, that's when he swore off religion. After the death of his child, he stopped attending church. (around 1851 A.D.)

It is true that the death of his daughter effected Darwin deeply.  However, saying that he "swore off religion" would seem to be claiming to know what was happening in his soul. 

Quote
It also should be known that both of Charles grandfathers were members of the "Lunatics Society", There were alot of Athiests in this group as well.

Just because you say that there were "alot of Athiests" does not make other members of a social group the same, I don't think. 

Quote
Erasmus Darwin(one of Charles Darwin's grandfathers) believed in the theory of evolution before Charles did. To be honest, this theory can be found in ancient pagan greek philosophy. But his granfather wrote a book called "Zoonomia" (the Laws of Organic life). Two years ago, I found this work online. I don't know if it is still up or not. but it was published around 1794.

Both volumes of "Zoonomia" may be found on Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/15707   Vol. 1
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/27600   Vol. 2

The poem you referred to, The Temple of Nature or the Origin of Society is also on Project Gutenberg as well as in scanned book form on Google Books:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=A5y3JgGr0i0C&dq=Poem+"The+Temple+of+Nature"&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=aDGb20mOYB&sig=aFDzvHTrtYI1FQhI8VQ6uEno318&ei=dsCVSe-iDteitge6zt2oCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA3,M1


Quote
If this is true, then he wasn't as Atheistic as some may think. He could of became an Agnostic after the death of his daughter, but I don't think he was an Atheist.

He wasn't.  He wrote in his autobiography that " The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic."

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm

Quote
most of the details in dates & events came from the book "evolution's fatal fruit" by Tom Derosa.

Does Mr. Derosa give any notes or bibliography that his ideas can be checked from original sources?  Since I have pointed out what could be more then one error, this book might not be the best source of material, particularly since Darwin did write an autobiography so his ideas and life can be checked in that primary source.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2009, 07:17:24 PM »

Finally--

and I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- at the bad theology here--  Shocked

once you are baptized, you are a Christian forever. You may become a bad Christian, or an unobservant Christian, or even an apostate Christian, but that baptism never comes off.


Aren't we getting into some oxymorons here with "bad Christian," "unobservant Christian," and "apostate Christian"?  If a Christian, by definition, is a servant or love slave of Christ, whoever doesn't serve and obey Christ isn't a Christian.  Aren't evil, worthless servants ultimately cast into the Lake of Fire?

A servant is someone is who bound to serve; a bad servant is one who does so poorly or not at all. We as Christians are all bound to serve our Lord, and all of us do it badly to some extent.

Somehow the parable of the Three Servants and the Talents come to mind here.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2009, 12:17:44 AM »

Ebor,

Creationism permeated the sciences back then. Both Adam Sedgwick, and  John Stevens Henslow believed in what is known among creationists as "the gap theory". Now you may not know our lingo and terms, but it is what it is.

You can buy Dr. Peter Harrison's books about how Religion (mainly protestant religion.....for that's what his books are mostly about) played a major role in the rise of the natural sciences.

I still stand by what I said in the post above. What you said didn't really overturn anything I siad. You may not like the spin I put on it, but the basic information i presented is all true.

You said that his wife was faithful christian, but you didn't say she wasn't a uniterian. So yeah, she could of been a faithful uniterian christian. Also, about him loosing faith in religion after the death of his daughter was my own personal spin. If he stopped going to church services around that time, then he shook off religion.

You are right, I don't know what was inhis heart. I didn't call him an Atheist......instead, I said he was an Agnostic. I even said that he supported the idea of Theistic evolution.







JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2009, 06:59:36 AM »

Quote
As opposed to the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church never condemned Darwin's work
Actually, I don't think the Anglican Church ever condemned Darwin's work.
Perhaps Ebor or Keble can confirm or deny this.

I also have not come across any official statement on behalf of the Anglican Communion condemning Darwin's work.  There were cases of clergyman either for or against it.  There is the famous debate between Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford and Thomas Huxley of which no transcript survives as far as I know.  There were articles and cartoons and such, but no, the Anglicans did not come out and say anything official against Darwin or The Origin of Species or anything else in that line.

I confess that I'm quite curious as to where the idea that we did so comes from.  Huh

Ebor

I think this typifies the problem of "religious groups" presenting items as "news".
I find the quality of "journalism" extremely poor, with quite an obvious inability to remain in any way objective or unbiased. As Basil Fawlty says: "You might as well ask the cat."
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2009, 08:11:44 AM »

In Darwin's own words, there were times that he supposed that he deserved to be called a theist. From his autobiography and correspondence, his faith seems to have fluctuated quite dramatically; although he was never an atheist.

The Church of England has apparently apologised for giving Chuck a hard time, although I have no knowledge of the details of what that hard time might have entailed.

"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

http://www.scientificblogging.com/science_20/blog/anglican_church_sends_darwin_apology_promotes_him_their_website_honor_his_bicentenary
 
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2009, 01:37:08 PM »

In Darwin's own words, there were times that he supposed that he deserved to be called a theist. From his autobiography and correspondence, his faith seems to have fluctuated quite dramatically; although he was never an atheist.

The Church of England has apparently apologised for giving Chuck a hard time, although I have no knowledge of the details of what that hard time might have entailed.

"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

http://www.scientificblogging.com/science_20/blog/anglican_church_sends_darwin_apology_promotes_him_their_website_honor_his_bicentenary
 


I never called him an Atheist.







JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2009, 01:50:12 PM »

I think I should define my terms.

When I say the word "CREATIONIST". I include Y.E.C. (Young Earth Creationist), O.E.C.(Old Earth Creationist), and T.E.(Theistic Evolution).

This is what I mean by that word. Most of the creationists of Charles Darwin's time were O.E.C. (Old Earth Creationists). It wasn't until later that most of the O.E.C.'s either lost faith or slowly changed into T.E.


The O.E.C's ruled the sciences back then. Now the sciences are ruled by Atheists and Agnostics, and they rule it with a stalinist fist.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 14, 2009, 01:55:01 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2009, 08:51:04 PM »

In Darwin's own words, there were times that he supposed that he deserved to be called a theist. From his autobiography and correspondence, his faith seems to have fluctuated quite dramatically; although he was never an atheist.

The Church of England has apparently apologised for giving Chuck a hard time, although I have no knowledge of the details of what that hard time might have entailed.

"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

http://www.scientificblogging.com/science_20/blog/anglican_church_sends_darwin_apology_promotes_him_their_website_honor_his_bicentenary
 


I never called him an Atheist.

JNORM888

Huh And I never said you did.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2009, 03:55:12 PM »

In Darwin's own words, there were times that he supposed that he deserved to be called a theist. From his autobiography and correspondence, his faith seems to have fluctuated quite dramatically; although he was never an atheist.

The Church of England has apparently apologised for giving Chuck a hard time, although I have no knowledge of the details of what that hard time might have entailed.

"Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

http://www.scientificblogging.com/science_20/blog/anglican_church_sends_darwin_apology_promotes_him_their_website_honor_his_bicentenary
 


I never called him an Atheist.

JNORM888

Huh And I never said you did.


my bad.





JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2009, 11:49:24 AM »

You said that his wife was faithful christian, but you didn't say she wasn't a uniterian.

Then I will write it plainly. Emma Darwin was a church-goer and a Christian and the church she attended was an Anglican parish.  It is recorded that she had deep concerns about her husband's faith or lack there off as she loved him very much. 

Quote
Also, about him loosing faith in religion after the death of his daughter was my own personal spin. If he stopped going to church services around that time, then he shook off religion.

Not necessarily. None of us know what Darwin went through or felt when his daughter died.  We know from his own writings that he had doubts about some things.  But not going to church is not always an indication of "shaking off religion".  If staying at home means that, then what of those here on the forum who have no EO parish nearby and cannot attend often.  So "spin" does not necessarily present the truth of a situation.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2009, 04:31:47 PM »

Ebor, not that I don't believe you, but you will have to quote that for me. I want to see your sources. And I want to see where it says that she wasn't a uniterian. Or that she stopped going to uniterian services around such and such a time to attend Church of England services.......this is what I want to see. Can you provide it?

 Also not going to church because of no churches near by and not going to church because of your child dying are two different things. It is obvious that if his child didn't die then we wouldn't be talking about him not going to church.

I believe that I can say that he at least shook off religion in the sense of no longer attending religious services.






JNORM888
« Last Edit: February 18, 2009, 04:38:49 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2009, 06:07:10 PM »

If you believe this reference she attended Anglican services but held Unitarian views.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2009, 06:32:46 PM »

If you believe this reference she attended Anglican services but held Unitarian views.


In other words, she was Anglican.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2009, 06:47:52 PM »

Would someone please remind me of what unitarian views are?  Grin
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2009, 07:19:05 PM »

If you believe this reference she attended Anglican services but held Unitarian views.


Thanks Keble.



Riddikulus,

Off the top of my head......I will say that they deny the doctrine of the Trinity. They don't see Jesus as being Divine. Nor do they see the Holy Spirit as being Divine.


I could be wrong about this .....sense I am shooting from the hip. I will have to review just to make sure. So double check me on this.







JNORM888
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2009, 07:24:36 PM »

If you believe this reference she attended Anglican services but held Unitarian views.


Thanks Keble.



Riddikulus,

Off the top of my head......I will say that they deny the doctrine of the Trinity. They don't see Jesus as being Divine. Nor do they see the Holy Spirit as being Divine.


I could be wrong about this .....sense I am shooting from the hip. I will have to review just to make sure. So double check me on this.


JNORM888

Thanks, JNORM888.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2009, 11:34:12 PM »

If you believe this reference she attended Anglican services but held Unitarian views.


In other words, she was Anglican.

That remark is beyond the pale.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2009, 11:35:37 PM »

If you believe this reference she attended Anglican services but held Unitarian views.


In other words, she was Anglican.

That remark is beyond the pale.


I don't understand the remark. Have I missed something?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2009, 11:43:07 PM »

You said that his wife was faithful christian, but you didn't say she wasn't a uniterian.

Then I will write it plainly. Emma Darwin was a church-goer and a Christian and the church she attended was an Anglican parish.  It is recorded that she had deep concerns about her husband's faith or lack there off as she loved him very much. 

Quote
Also, about him loosing faith in religion after the death of his daughter was my own personal spin. If he stopped going to church services around that time, then he shook off religion.

Not necessarily. None of us know what Darwin went through or felt when his daughter died.  We know from his own writings that he had doubts about some things.  But not going to church is not always an indication of "shaking off religion".  If staying at home means that, then what of those here on the forum who have no EO parish nearby and cannot attend often.  So "spin" does not necessarily present the truth of a situation.

Ebor

No Anglican parish nearby in Britain?  Odd.

If you believe this reference she attended Anglican services but held Unitarian views.


In other words, she was Anglican.

That remark is beyond the pale.


I think Jetevan's point, as much as it might pain you, is that Anglicanism has shown quite plainly that nothing is beyond the pale for it, except perhaps traditional Christian morality.

I don't understand the remark. Have I missed something?

The point is that in the Orthodox Church, if you hold Arian/Unitarian views, you have no business at Orthodox services, at least as a participant.  Not so in Anglicanism.  Deny the central dogmas of the Gospel, and you can still get ordained a bishop.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2009, 11:48:34 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2009, 01:34:50 AM »

If you believe this reference she attended Anglican services but held Unitarian views.


In other words, she was Anglican.

That remark is beyond the pale.


To clarify, Unitarian theology is not Anglican theology, but many Anglicans historically have rejected, to one degree or another, Trinitarianism.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2009, 12:57:28 PM »

If you believe this reference she attended Anglican services but held Unitarian views.


In other words, she was Anglican.

That remark is beyond the pale.


To clarify, Unitarian theology is not Anglican theology, but many Anglicans historically have rejected, to one degree or another, Trinitarianism.

So have many Orthodox, but last I checked we still say the Creed every Sunday.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2009, 12:39:05 PM »

Ebor, not that I don't believe you, but you will have to quote that for me. I want to see your sources. And I want to see where it says that she wasn't a uniterian. Or that she stopped going to uniterian services around such and such a time to attend Church of England services.......this is what I want to see. Can you provide it?

Certainly, from a collection of Emma Darwin's letters and memoir edited by one of her daughters, which is a primary source of imformation on the lady.  Here is a passage from page 173 which is about half way down the linked page:

"In our childhood and youth she was not only sincerely religious—this she always was in the true sense of the word—but definite in her beliefs. She went regularly to church and took the Sacrament. She read the Bible with us and taught us a simple Unitarian Creed, though we were baptized and confirmed in the Church of England. In her youth religion must have largely filled her life, and there is evidence in the papers she left that it distressed her, in her early married life, to know that my father did not share her faith. "

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1553.2&pageseq=1

Notice that I did not cut out the line about teaching the children a "simple Unitarian Creed". Whether that was because of her husband's wishes or another reason, I don't know.  However, as a person whose parents were Unitarian and one who is familiar with that particular group, none that I knew would ever go to an Episcopal parish or other Christian church to take the Sacrament.  Emma was confirmed in the Church of England, was a regular Communicant, read the Bible and was active in parish duties to the poor.  She also was deeply concerned that her husband "did not share her faith."   


Quote
Also not going to church because of no churches near by and not going to church because of your child dying are two different things. It is obvious that if his child didn't die then we wouldn't be talking about him not going to church.

I believe that I can say that he at least shook off religion in the sense of no longer attending religious services.

I agree that there is a difference.  But we don't know what would have happened if his daughter hadn't died at age 10.  That is speculation and not obvious, meaning no disrespect.  Have you read Darwin's autobiography for a primary source of information?



Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,605



« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2009, 01:00:09 PM »

If you believe this reference she attended Anglican services but held Unitarian views.


In other words, she was Anglican.

That remark is beyond the pale.


To clarify, Unitarian theology is not Anglican theology, but many Anglicans historically have rejected, to one degree or another, Trinitarianism.

So have many Orthodox,

Correction:EX-Orthodox.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.155 seconds with 67 queries.