The point, which you seem to have missed entirely, is that whether you are a Catholic, a Jew, a Muslim, an atheist, or whatever, and you want to draw people to your cause, if you come across as a jerk, people will say to themselves, "Why would I want to become one of those jerks???" We were always taught (in Catholic school) that the way to draw converts to the Church was by good example.

Dear God! What a bunch of snowflake crybabies! We're so sorry his TONE offended you. Do y'all need safe spaces to run to after reading this?

I wonder, have any of you read the common atheist diatribes against faith and Christianity? Do you find them equally offensive?

All very good points and I agree, mostly. Perhaps it is pedantic of me, and I suppose I am focusing on the distinction between Darwinian Evolution the scientific paradigm and Darwin's own contribution, substantial though it was.

I agree that evolution is fatal to essentialism, and all that implies, but my understanding is that evolution was already becoming the dominant paradigm decades prior to 1859. It was the mechanism of this evolution that Darwin contributed. Maybe Lamarckian evolution is less damaging to essentialism, but I don't think so.

I won't say that some haven't been led to atheism by evolution, but I certainly was not. While I do agree with you that Darwin, and all that he implies, is fatal to theism for all the reasons you listed, this does not stop the majority of Christians and the RCC from thinking the two can get along. They are wrong, but personally I would just as soon let them persist in their delusion than risk angry mobs of newly-informed Christians burning our natural history museums and libraries...

That has happened before...

unrelated to natural selection

I'm going to double down on my "leading people to atheism" quip. :-)

If it's a Catholic theism, natural selection alone raises the question: which distant ancestor was the first to be human, with a human soul? Catholic theists, because of Aristotelean essentialism, must claim that a single point in time existed when that happened. However, natural selection explains why that question is nonsensical: offspring are the same species as their parents with evidence supporting gradual speciation.

Checkmate A/T believers, because of Darwin.

Mike

No more saving the world and saving your own skin. That is the stuff of children’s tales.

Absolutely right, if saving the world means perfecting the world. But if all we're trying to do is improve it, we can't do even that if we don't collectively save our own skins, though a few of us might have to make the ultimate sacrifice before that can happen.

This is a very complex topic. Where does grace come in, why do some people still experience God even though, to all appearances they are not open to God? I think the closest I can put it in eloquent theological terms is "I dunno".

Fair enough.

Sometimes this receptivity to God is coached in language that sounds critical. Sometimes that criticism is intended, I suppose. The Bible certainly has instances where such lack of openness is criticized. Personally I don't believe that anyone can be criticized for that. I know people personally who have tried for years to "receive" God, who searched for God with all their hearts, only to eventually give up that search.

While I don't know the story of the loss of your own faith I struggle to see how that can be ascribed to a lack of openness. You just don't seem to be that type of person. Given practical experience and the reports of so many people, I cannot see how a lack of such openness can be a negative judgment. The closest that it can be to criticism is if an individual fails to search for the truth, as she may see it.

I see my statement more in positive terms, where that openness can be seen as a quid pro quo for experiencing God. More a case of "If you want to meet God, and have any possible chance of doing so, you need to be as receptive to Him as possible."

This is a very complex topic. Where does grace come in, why do some people still experience God even though, to all appearances they are not open to God? I think the closest I can put it in eloquent theological terms is "I dunno".

I am quite comfortable in accepting that unless we are open to God we will not experience him.

I used to believe in God. Wasn't that being open enough?

So sorry to hear about your loss Lazarus. You and your family will be in my prayers.