Darwin Worship Adopted by the Church of Anything Goes
| March 28, 2006 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
Jack Krebs is crowing about a class on Darwinian dogma put on in conjunction with the Unitarian Universalist “Church”. He plans on preaching to the choir.
The Universalist Unitarian Church is composed of (multiple answers were allowed in the survey so it adds up over 100%)
humanist (54%)
agnostic (33%)
earth-centered (31%)
atheist (18%)
Buddhist (17%)
pagan (13%)
Christian (13%)
You can believe anything or nothing in this so-called “church”. What a coup for Jack Krebs and Kansas Citizens for Science to have the backing of a local UUC congregation. We should start worrying now I guess. 
So confident is Jack that he says of the class he’s teaching
It’s intended to help the average person who accepts evolution understand it better.
In other words he’s preaching to the choir. I mean literally preaching the pseudo-religious Darwinian dogma in conjunction with a pseudo-religious church to people who already have psuedo-religious faith in the Darwinian narrative but hope to find a rational basis for their Darwinian pseudo-religion.
Jack Krebs, what a maverick you are! 
43 Responses to Darwin Worship Adopted by the Church of Anything Goes
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
For what it is worth, C.S. Lewis posited that hell was not flames, but merely the absense of God. See The Great Divorce. Other professed Christians believe in universal salvation. Those who fail to accept Christ in this life, have the opporunity to do so in purgatory. This generally addresses the paradox of inaccessibility (to wit, there are tribesmen in Borneo who won’t get the opportunity to accept Christ until then).
Classical universalism as taught by Origen as “apocatastasis” has nothing to do with Unitarianism or even Univeralist-ism.
Apocatastatis is simply the belief that the resurrection secured salvation for all. Everyone was saved, evil was defeated, victory over death and even the lake of fire (the second death) where unbelievers are sent to be purified. Only those who know they are saved and remain enemies of God will be eternally tormented.
Salvation is an opportunity for sanctification. Sanctification is only available to those who repent of sin and purify themselves here on earth. Else, it is off to the lake of fire to finish the job. Thus all will be reconciled back to God, and the original sin of Adam is overcome.
Many churches reject this universal reconciliation, and insist on a purgatory or even eternal damnation for people that have never heard of, or reject salvation. They place themselves in-between God and Man, along with Christ.
Ignorance is not disbelief, or even unbelief. Origen relied heavily on the sovereignty of God and His final Judgement, rather than casting the church in role of pre-judging humanity.
This “Gospel of Inclusion” has been revisited by Bishop Carleton Pearson, and he has been discredited by strong exclusivists as a result. The Gospel of Exclusion has been taught by the convservative religous establishment since just before the Dark Ages.
Note that Origen’s “Apocatastasis” was rejected just before the Dark Ages.
Eagles with two right wings tend to spiral.
the problem with the question of ‘believing in Christ’ as so many so-called Christians do, is that they personalize the universality of Christ, and therefore incorrectly believe that personal recognition of Christian teachings is necessary for salvation. Christ was constantly trying to do just the opposite of this. He said “I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE…” Most Christians personalize this, making it into something which might be restated “Truth and life and the Way are aquired through personal relationship with me, Christ”, whereas a far more universal interpretation could be restated “relationship with the Way (God’s laws, goodness) and relationship with Truth, is equivalent to relationship with me, Christ” In this reading, anyone who lives a life which is inwardly oriented to the truth, toward goodness, etc. would be judged as being “Christian”, as opposed to the narrow view that only those who consciously and in this lifetime, learn about the historical Jesus and his life, and “accept” this. This reading also is far more in tune with the fact of Christ’s own disinterest in sects, calling the samaritan morally superior. It is interesting to me to see the above post which contains the venerable C.S.Lewis’ view that those who don’t get the opportunity to know Christ in this life are given the great good mercy of being able to do so in purgatory. How lovely. Why would the Creator God, from whom all of life emerged, produce such piecework, filled with such merciless inequality? I can just picture the self-satisfied middle american “Christian” who was born into a devout family of church-going parents, for whom the “choice” to “accept” Christ was facile, socially encouraged and supported, really a no-brainer. how can such a person comfort themselves, or even sleep at night when they contemplate their fellow-men, in the island or Borneo, who will only have to go to purgatory for having been born in the wrong place…
“Jason, you say people are aware of the moral standard, but they are not. Jesus taught one, and the church teaches both it and another, and they are opposed.”
I understand what you’re saying, and of course there’s a huge difference between knowing what to do and actually acting it out. A lot of churches today aren’t in great condition and it seems inevitable given human nature.
“It is very simple really. A teaching that we will remain forever happy while others are forever unhappy is fundamentally uncompassionate. How are we to learn to be compassionate when our religion requires that we have a hard heart?”
I can’t tell you who’s going where after they die. Christianity came at a time of great social barriers and the idea that anyone who believed could be saved. It was a more radical idea in the day than it seems to us now, but it was a giant step towards a more equal society for all.
I believe that we should not assume that everyone deserves to be “happy forever”, and if God is just and fair then people will get what they deserve.
“I might be misunderstanding Christian theology but I thought Jesus paid that penalty (a death to appease his wrath) with his own death?”
Yes, that is the story line. I picked up a Billy Graham book on a patient’s bedside table, and in it I found “God demanded a death.”
Pretty inspirational, huh?
Yes, CS Lewis was amazing, right on the money. For what it’s worth, the ancient church had 5 important bishoprics, and of those 5 only one – Rome – is not still Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox church does not teach that God required a compensatory death in order to forgive us. And it is interesting that Roman feudal law of that time had very similar requirements about satisfaction of wrongs and substitutionary victims.
I wouldn’t say these things except that it grieves me to see the wonderful God of this universe slandered in his character, and Christians who want to learn goodness placed in a state of impossible spiritual contradiction.
Please don’t think I am tooting the horn of the church I grew up in, because I am no longer a member of any particular religion. But I do think it is very useful to help break the deadlock of this theology to point out there is very strong roots for another view.
“I believe that we should not assume that everyone deserves to be “happy foreverâ€Â, and if God is just and fair then people will get what they deserve.”
There’s nothing just about creating a situation that goes awry and letting the people born into sin and confusion pay an eternal penalty. The policy is cruel, and Christians must come up with hard-hearted justifications of it, as you just did. That is a fact and it prevents Christians from becoming Christians. You just can’t have both. Jesus said you can’t serve two masters. There are two sets of teachings in Christianity, and they are opposed.
People will indeed get what they deserve. The image of God is pure. All people can be purified. It is their true nature. Sin is a covering.
“18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.â€Â
I have some thoughts on this. First, we must not allow ourselves to suppose that God is capable of egotistical insistence upon fawning belief, nor can we assume that people are to blame for genuinely not knowing what to think on the God or Jesus question. It is important to realize the extent to which Jesus was speaking specifically to the Jews of that time. The Jews of that time were locked in – they were completely locked into their religion and the messiah. Many of them wouldn’t even eat with gentiles. Jesus was their chance. He was “the man.” If they missed him and his message – then they missed. I personally believe in reincarnation, and I think Jesus did also. There is also a strong possibility that people have time to accept God during the dying process.
Not to know God during this life is a tragedy. Christians have been taught to focus too much on a future life. Jesus was quite often pointing out the importance of THIS life. The future comes, but ‘now’ is the only moment we ever have. The only way to bring a wonderful future is to make it come true now, so that it can continue to come true as the future unfolds.
The words in that passage about those who are condemned or who prefer darkness need not be taken as eternal pronouncements. It is bad enough that they are indeed true for people in this world, in this life, now.
avocationist: hurray! thank you for your beautiful statement of the absolute blasphemy contained in the notion that God, in his majesty and justice, demanded the bloody torture and murder of his only Son in order to “satisfy” his bloodlust. Truly a more fundamental inversion of the most basic sense of justice is impossible to conceive. And this wholecloth -creation arising in order that a humanity, already steeped in self-satisfaction, can bask in the glow of feeling how very valuable they are to God “He died for me!” Really? Or was he murdered by you? This apart from the fact that Christ’s own words “Father, FORGIVE THEM, they know NOT WHAT THEY DO!” illustrate quite clearly that what took place was no less than a crime which itself demanded forgiveness. How is it possible for the human intellect to twist this into the idea that God wanted this?
I was unaware, but interested to read, that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice. Thanks.
I think that’s about it for you here, Tina. Hasta la vista, baby! -ds
tinabrewer: Your militancy is interesting. Pardon me for alluding to the beliefs of others (the pikers!). Next time I’ll run a pre-check on your sarcasm meter. In the meantime, please tell me, are “so-called” Christians as insufferably self-righteous as you?
Come on guys, no text-proofing, please. I know every agnostic, pagan, materialist, etc. has their favorite bible verse or verse fragment in which they see some heretofore hidden meaning. Funny scrores of generations of some of the worlds most intelligent and reflective folks just plumb missed it! thank God (whozzat?) for your clueing me in on the meaning of the teachings I’ve been studying for the last 20-odd years. I had no idea that such free-wheeling ‘interpretation’ could cancel the intent of the entire New Testament for me. (Hey DS, this sarcasm is fun!)
kvwells: I understand your sentiment for I like effectively placed sarcasm as much as the next belligerent codger, but see the need to bow, in this instance, to the moderation policy. To wit:
***********************************************************************************
Theism and Atheism – We don’t discourage discussion of the implications ID or evolutionary theories have on religious or irreligious beliefs. We do discourage preaching–proselytizing for a particular faith or attacking one. This includes atheistic faith.
***********************************************************************************
Without it, this site could easily degenerate into religious confrontation.
Thanks Nostrowski,
You’re quite right. I’ll stay on the sraight and narrow. This sort of discussion arouses the most spiky ire and brings out the firebrand in all of us, I think. I do understand, possibly, tinabrewer’s upset over a very shallow glossing over of what was happening on that cross so long ago. These are considerations of the most profound significance, and deserve better than some here have given them.
This is my last comment on this post, and I would simply suggest that it may be wise to remember this: That Jesus of Nazareth taught and asserted both how and why he would be killed. This is part of the whole, as off-angle as it is to what our expectations may be as to what a “great human teacher” (or whatever our assessment is) would be and do.
thanks for having me over.
I am very sorry to see Tina go. She is a very intelligent poster and reasonable. I was quite intrigued by her unusual views and was just about to ask for her email.
Just to reiterate what I’ve said before, I think that the topic of religion is germane to the evolution debate, altho on a blog such as this it should not stray too far into arguments such as the meaning of scripture.
In my opinion, the whole history of Christianity and its problems are a main reason why Darwin and many others who were waiting in the wings for a good way out were so happy to jump on the evolution bandwagon.
It seems to me that Christians are unable to listen to the other side partly because they feel nervous that there is no way to adjust their theology without total loss.
Anyway, kvwells, I will be thinking as I go through the New Testament about where Christ’s words about his coming crucifixion support the current theology.
If you see fit, you can throw a coupe of ref’s my way.
I’ll arrange for you two to exchange email addresses if it’s okay with Tina. -ds
kvwells: I by no means meant to suggest that you weren’t on the straight and narrow nor would I presume to do so. It isn’t my place. Mine was simply conjecture as to why Dave nixed tinabrewer’s participation. According to the moderation policy, sarcastically berating someone for their religious beliefs would be cause for departure. My entire post was one of commiseration for I was straining at the bit myself.
avocationist: Please elaborate. I adjust my theology (albeit minutely) each time I happen upon a theologian (amateur or professional) whose viewpoint enhances my own. Indeed, the term “theology” is so broad that I would be surprised to find Christians who don’t alter (however minutely) some part of theirs with regularity. To stop growing in theology is to stop thinking.
Thanks Dave, let me know how to do it.
Hi Nostrowski,
Perhaps I bit off more than I can chew. I am thinking of starting a website or writing a book. I think that Christianity needs reform, that the first reformation was shallow and didn’t address the underlying issues.
I admire CS Lewis’ thinking a lot.
Specifically, I think the doctrine of eternal punishment is a disaster, and almost equally the doctrine that God required a sacrifice to atone for Adam’s sin, although it’s poison is more subtle.
Pehaps it is alright for us to ramble on a bit, since this post is now out of the spotlight. I thought I elaborated quite a bit in my earlier posts and I am not sure what I should elaborate upon. Tell me what sort of faith you belong to?
Tina seemed offended by the idea of purgatory, and of course theologians have greatly exaggerated beyond anything scriptural the sufferings “inflicted” upon those in hell or purgatory. I was always taught that fire was a metaphor, that hell was a separation from God and never that God inflicted punishment intentionally. I tend to think that purgatory of some sort is unavoidable, and intuited by many peoples of the world.
I just went back and saw bigtalktheory’s post. Sorry I missed it at the time. Maybe it was in the holding tank. Looks like universal salvation is finally getting around. I didn’t quite get this:
“They place themselves in-between God and Man, along with Christ.”
Are you saying Christ gets placed between God and Man?