Do you reckon she just didn't think it was as important as some of today's fundies do?
2007-07-14 11:20:29 · 14 answers · asked by Bad Liberal 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
She actually was just a very, very, very slow liar.
2007-07-14 11:55:28 · answer #1 · answered by Jack B, sinistral 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
As far as I understand , Darwin's supposed deathbed conversion is a myth. At the very best it is unconfirmed and undocumented.
As far as Chritians today go, if they want to believe that Darwin converted, then great, I hope he did and praise the Lord, BUT it should not be used as a means to try to convert others. Whether he converted or not has little to no bearing on how those that have openly received his previous teachings are going to accept the gospel.
Darwin was a man. I see many Christians accepting the falsities of evolution so people could argue backa nd forth all day long about which bigger name believes what. Richard Dawkins could convert today and that would be fine and great and wonderful but have no effect on others who believe what he believes no- because his name is not the name by which men are to be saved and neither is Darwins. It is silly to use those trivialities as last ditch efforts to try to convert others. What the biggest name on the planet believes, what the majority belief is has no bearing whatsoever on reality and what is and is not true.
Believers can rejoice and thank God amongst themselves for another coming to the saving knowledge of Christ, but when it comes to nonbelievers it means nothing- preach the gospel- nothing more, nothing less, be kind, tenderhearted and merciful, displaying the fruits of the spirit and the love of Jesus and let your life be a witness and a testimony- if they still do not receive , wipe your feet and move on.
2007-07-14 18:32:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Well my friend, "there is a time for everything".
A time to laugh and a time to cry
A time to live and a time to die
A time to build up and a time to tear down
AND
A time for you to ask this question and for me to answer it
I reckon the best way to find the answer is to ask Lady Hope to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth the ask the 12 jurors to make a decision. After that then make the story into a movie and take a public opinion survey.
The net results will surely produce a minimum of two sides or views on this issue.
2007-07-15 00:30:44 · answer #3 · answered by cjkeysjr 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Lady Hope story about Darwin being somehow "remorseful" and abjuring evolution is a lie. Even Christian leaders ask their sheeple not to spread the story any more.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/darwin.htm
So there! Stop Bearing False Witness, Christians. Even if it is against Evolution or Evolutionists, God will still roast you in Hell for it. So ON YOUR KNEES! Beg for forgiveness now to the Evolutionists so we can all have a truth-based existence. You'll have to find some other lame line of argument to claim religion is real.
And Coby L., Christianity has HUGE down-sides you are not considering, whereas there IS no Afterlife, it is not a witnessed thing. Con-men always try to sell you some invisible benefit they portray as amazing, for a "small" price they will extract from you and make off with. Exaggerate returns, minimize investment, is the con-man's way. I personally don't want to be forced into a situation of obeying a "holy" leader to the point where I bomb abortion clinics or drink Cyanide Kool-Aid, and even if the church is not an insane one you've still spent thousands of dollars in your life and wasted a lot of time indoctrinating yourself and praying to empty air!
Oh, yeah, and being condemned to really, really BAD sex with no regard for the woman.
2007-07-14 18:26:11 · answer #4 · answered by PIERRE S 4 · 8⤊ 1⤋
Um, same reason the Gospels weren't written 'til 30+ years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth born in Bethlehem?
2007-07-14 19:22:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Probably pressure from the local holies. I don't believe he said what she said he did.I really believe it's another of the church's many dirty tricks.
2007-07-14 18:26:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
she had to wait for her memory of the event to be redacted under the influence of what she really hoped was so
2007-07-14 18:25:00 · answer #7 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That or she was talked into writing a story that was a political lie.
2007-07-14 18:26:53 · answer #8 · answered by novangelis 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
she told me about it 7 years before i was born.
2007-07-14 18:24:02 · answer #9 · answered by Hannah's Grandpa 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
ok, that is a terribly weighted question. I'm sure I completely agree with the point you're trying to get across, but this is not the way.
2007-07-14 18:24:39 · answer #10 · answered by Ray Patterson - The dude abides 6 · 3⤊ 4⤋