Re: Church says sorry to Charles Darwin

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:26:26 -0400, Ray Martinez wrote
(in article
<58cefc92-9c6f-4199-a667-195ceca581ad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

On Sep 15, 10:56 am, Caranx latus <kar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 15, 1:33 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Sep 14, 5:05 am, "Boony" <boony123...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Fromhttp://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24345546-5005962,00..
..

THE Church of England will make an official apology to naturalist Charles
Darwin for criticising his famous theory of evolution.

Coming 126 years after his death, the church's apology will focus on how
wrong it was for senior bishops in the past to misunderstand and attack
Darwin's theory about man being descended from apes.

Senior church officials will post the apology in the form of an article
written by the Reverend Dr Malcolm Brown on the church's website tomorrow.

"Charles Darwin, 200 years from your birth (in 1809), the Church of
England
owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first
reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still,'' the
article
says, according to extracts printed by The Mail on Sunday newspaper.

"But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is
not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in
support
of their own interests.''

But the apology by Dr Brown, who is the director of mission and public
affairs of the Archbishops' Council, has been dismissed as "pointless'' by
Darwin's great great grandson Andrew Darwin.

"Why bother? he said.

"When an apology is made after 200 years, it's not so much to right a
wrong,
but to make the person or organisation making the apology feel better.''

But Dr Brown says everyone makes mistakes, the church included.

"When a big new idea emerges that changes the way people look at the
world,
it's easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack
and
then to do battle against the new insights,'' he writes.

"The church made that mistake with Galileo's astronomy and has since
realised its error.

"Some Church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin's theory
of natural selection.

"So it is important to think again about Darwin's impact on religious
thinking, then and now.''

Dr Brown said there was nothing incompatible between Darwin's scientific
theories and Christian teaching.

Proof of Satan: a "Christian" siding with Atheists (= enemies of God)
concerning origin of living things and not Genesis.

Atheists are not enemies of God, Ray. It does not make any sense to be
an enemy to that which does not exist. Would you please let that soak
into your brain? Are you the enemy of Zeus?

Is it worth reminding you as well that you are not the arbiter of
anyone else's Christianity?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Atheists have written millions of books and articles attacking
Christianity and Biblical veracity.

'Millions'? Are you sure? Besides, numerous Christians have also written
articles and books attacking the concept of an infallible Bible which must be
literally true in its every line. A large number of those Christians have
been clergy, and they have done this over a very long period. There's a
reason why: the Bible is simply not literally true. There was, for instance,
no Flood. Noah did not exist. When Joshua went by Jerico, it was already in
ruins, so he didn't break any walls, he couldn't have, they were already
down. The sun did _not_ stand still above Jerico. Indeed, it cannot ever have
stood still, as the Earth goes around it, not it around the Earth, and the
Earth's rotation did not stop and then start again. And those are only a few
of the places where the Bible is obviously, breathtakingly, glaringly, in
most grievous error... if taken literally. I learned that in Religious
Knowledge class, taught by John P. Hughes, SJ, back in what Americans would
call the 9th grade. As I was in a Church school (I went to Church schools
from elementary all the way to university) we had to take Religious Knowledge
whether we wanted to or not. (Mostly we didn't. The Jesuits who ran the high
school didn't much care about our opinions.) How many of those articles and
books you're on about were actually written by members of the Society of
Jesus, the Congregation of the Holy Cross, the Servants of Mary, or any of
many other actual working clergy, Catholic and Protestant and Jewish? Or is
it that anyone who demonstrates that the Bible is _not_ to be taken literally
is, in your mind, an atheist?

Evolution is supported by all
Atheists.

And by very large numbers of of non atheists.

Denying these self-evident facts confirms that Atheists,
like yourself, are brazen liars.

Am I an atheist, too, Ray-ray? Was Pinky Hughes an atheist? How about Sister
Hildegarde, OSM, who taught the Introduction to the Sacraments classes at my
elementary school? Is Pope Benedict an atheist, Ray-ray? How about the
current Archbishop of Canterbury? Do you even know who the Archbishop of
Canterbury _is_?


Ray




--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Church says sorry to Charles Darwin
    ... Darwin for criticising his famous theory of evolution. ... wrong it was for senior bishops in the past to misunderstand and attack ... reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still,'' the article ... Atheists are not enemies of God, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Church says sorry to Charles Darwin
    ... Darwin for criticising his famous theory of evolution. ... wrong it was for senior bishops in the past to misunderstand and attack ... reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still,'' the article ... Atheists have written millions of books and articles attacking ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Church says sorry to Charles Darwin
    ... Darwin for criticising his famous theory of evolution. ... wrong it was for senior bishops in the past to misunderstand and attack ... reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still,'' the article ... Atheists have written millions of books and articles attacking ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Enturbulated Blogspot SPAMMER
    ... articles "trolling", because you can't think of any other ... For drugs with a low therapeutic index (small difference ... and LIES to attack the critic, rather than the criticism. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Goodbye
    ... As I expect you remember I posted a humorous little article a month or two ago, and was immediately attacked by Gandalf. ... One reason given for this unprovoked attack was that Gandalf had suffered a loss. ... Third, since I have not felt like reading here since, I expect not reading this NG will not be the end of the world. ... While I have enjoyed many many articles here, the only loss i really feel from not reading the articles is not reading Mark Edward's articles. ...
    (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes)