[in response to the Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed story]
I would rather believe Lady Hope. Granted, it is entirely possible that she may have lied, but given that she was a staunch Christian, I don't think she would have for fear of facing an eternity of hellfire.
49 comments
So what, Jesus was forsaken by his God on his deathbed ... er, deathcross.
Still, always look on the bright side of lfe, eh?
You would rather believe a lie that supports your belief than a truth that does not.
That makes you intellectually dishonest...a person who knowingly and willingly accepts a lie and repudiates the truth. And then repeats the lie as if it were truth.
You ain't getting into heaven thataway...
It seems to me that a Christian who was truely honest would be the first to say that Lady Hope was a liar rather than defend her.
Unintentional Honesty Award, anyone?
Yeah, yeah, yeah -- and evolution is only a theory ...
Lying hound asshat clownshoe windowshitting fundie twunt.
WhatchutalkinboutWillis? Christians do not fear eternal hellfire for lying, because Jesus will forgive them for every lie they tell and every adulterous affair they have with chimpanzees. In fact, that she was a staunch Christian was most likely all the reason she needed to lie in the first place: discrediting the theory of the evil Darwin, for Jesus.
I would rather believe Lady Hope. Granted, it is a certainty that people who spread that story are lying, ignorant, or both, but the truth has a well-known anti-fundy bias.
Yeah well you fundies have this thing about not believing that the 9th commandment applies to you so, I kinda fucking doubt Lady Hope's story. In fact hulduh, I haven't seen a whole lot said by you to make me have much faith in your stories either.
"Granted, it is entirely possible that she may have lied, but given that she was a staunch Christian, I don't think she would have for fear of facing an eternity of hellfire."
Because it works oh so well with the rest of you, right? I haven't met a Christian yet who felt he was in danger of hellfire no matter what he's done. Funny how they all have Gawd on their side no matter what kind of prick they are.
His wife Emma was also a staunch Christian, and said it didn't happen.
Remember, in those days your husband not being a True ChristianTM was not grounds for divorce before you try the guilt by association trick.
m'kay, firstly, go back and read what religion Jesus was. What's that? He was Jewish? Well huh, if he believed he was the messiah, wouldn't he have been THE Christian?
Aside from that, this fundie does make an interesting point. After all Dubya is a strong Christian too, and we all know he wouldn't lie, right?
So you'd believe someone with no connection to Darwin, or reason to be there than his own daughter. And you wonder why we don't listen to you? Because to you people, reality isn't judged by what is, it's judged by what you think it should be.
Of *course* you would rather believe a fairy tale told to keep spinning the mythos of Creationism.
Far be it from you to totally ignore the fact that Darwin's own daughter said Elizabeth Hope 'embellished' (lied) about her visits with Darwin.
In other words "la la la la I can't HEEEAR you".
Even if Darwin recanted the TOE on his deathbed, it changes nothing, the TOE is extremely well supported by an overwhelming mountain of evidence.
The problem, Huldah, is that you have misinterpreted the concept of sin. According to doctrine, we're all sinners. However, according to fundy theology(and particularly Lady Hope's), as the only thing you have to do to go to Heaven, regardless whether you're a sinner or goody two shoes, is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour, she doesn't give a danm. On the other side, she may not be totally lying. To be lying, she has to say DELIVERATELY something which is not true. She may want to believe that it was true and considered that the detail about being present at the moment of his deathbed was a white lie, or a lesser evil, compared to the questioning of Genesis. At the time, when science was in an embryonic state, many people trusted the argumentum ad auctoritas, that is, to consider something true bearing in mind who says so.
And she quickly published the story some years later.
In fact, her being a staunch christian makes it much more likely that she was lying, plus, Darwin's daughters who were present at his death did not mention any sort of renouncement.
But why let that get to your head? Jesus never wanted you to think, dammit!
The fires of hell obviously did not scare her one little bit.
Well, me neither. But I don't need the fires of hell to scare me in order for me to tell the truth instead of making shit up.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
