'God v Aliens' - what a great B movie title! [Archive]

View Full Version : 'God v Aliens' - what a great B movie title!

Steve W

04-22-2007, 11:40 PM

AnnieColleen

04-22-2007, 11:50 PM

CS Lewis has a great essay on this subject (God vs. aliens), though he doesn't address the 'greatness' issue specifically and he takes the opposite position from what you're looking for. Might be worth looking at to see what points might be involved in the discussion.

Dancre

04-23-2007, 03:07 AM

Hi,

Okay, it's not the sequel to that 50s classic 'Earth against the Flying Saucers', but, please stick with it.
This is regarding an argument in my WIP:

As the Bible says Man is God's greatest creation, would the existence of aliens prove damaging to Christianity? Obviously I'm not talking about alien mircobes or bugs, but aliens that are mentally and physically superiour to humans. Could such existence cast doubt on there being a God, or a God as we know it, by showing His 'greatest creation' is inferior to the aliens, therefore, He can't be all powerful/knowing, etc? I know this might be difficult, but I'm not looking for proof of God, or how aliens could exist without any detriment to His word, etc, but the opposite -- how to argue that such alien life would impact adversely on Christianity. (I don't know enough about the subject to know if the argument I've used is sound enough.)

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks for your time.
Cheers,
Steve

LOL!!! Nope, not me. I don't care how many aliens are out there, Jesus is still my God and I'll believe in Him no matter what's out there. And I think you need to understand why Christians believe in Christ. We believe b/c He confirms Himself to us everyday. It's like He says, Yes, I'm here for you. We believe in Him b/c He loved us first. So, no alien life would not have an impact on Christians. I think you need to have a better understanding of what Christianity is and why we believe in what we believe. But please, feel free to ask questions. You can PM if that makes you more comfortable.

kim

kdnxdr

04-23-2007, 04:38 AM

There was some thread where this subject was tossed around.....sorry, can't think of the thread at the moment.

Some christians believe that "aliens" are, in fact, fallen angels that rebelled with Lucifer. They were cast out of heaven and became the devil and demons.

Humans greatness is not in our physical/mental abilities but rather the fact that we are made in God's image. Also, we are His beloved, where He has placed his affections. The scriptures say, "In our (human) weakness, He (Jesus) is made strong. God reveals Jesus and Himself through humans to the heavenly beings (Ephesians, I think). God reveals Himself to humans through Jesus and nature.

According to scriptures, there is, in fact, a spiritual war that is going on since the day of the rebellion of Lucifer and the rebelling angels.

If "aliens" are fallen angels/demons, it is clear that God/Jesus/christians are in a constant state of warfare. Until Jesus comes back, that is the status quo.

Judg

04-23-2007, 04:48 AM

what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?

You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
So where in there does it say that man is God's greatest creation? Or anywhere else in the Bible? Maybe I'm just forgetful...

callalily61

04-23-2007, 05:46 AM

Caveat: I am NO Bible scholar. However, I think that "man is God's greatest creation" was extrapolation fro the Genesis story. God made Man last, in God's image, and said Man would rule over the beasts etc.

IMO, why wouldn't aliens exist? I think it's more farfetched to see all the galaxies and assume we're the only sentient beings God created.

And that doesn't mess with my faith. I believe God shows Himself to people in a context we can understand. So Jesus is my context, the Morrighan is another context, Zeus is yet another.

I heard a great comedian say that taking the Genesis story at face value, god created Man at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon, and nobody does their best work that late on a Friday.:tongue

I'm rambling...

Judg

04-23-2007, 06:32 PM

Caveat: I am NO Bible scholar. However, I think that "man is God's greatest creation" was extrapolation fro the Genesis story. God made Man last, in God's image, and said Man would rule over the beasts etc.
Which is more or less my point. The passage I cited makes it pretty clear that man is NOT the greatest of God's creation, even without resorting to aliens. Extrapolations and theological cogitations are not what the Bible says, but what people have decided they think it means. Many curious doctrines have been concocted this way, some very popular in some very large denominations.

The existence of aliens would not, in and of itself, shake my faith. I suggest that Steve W read C.S. Lewis' science fiction trilogy, chock full of both faith and aliens.

Bravo

04-23-2007, 06:39 PM

LOL!!! Nope, not me. I don't care how many aliens are out there, Jesus is still my God and I'll believe in Him no matter what's out there.

i dont understand.

jesus is your god but he wouldnt/couldnt be god for the aliens?

that sounds like polytheism.

MidnightMuse

04-23-2007, 07:03 PM

I probably shouldn't this early in the morning, but I'll chime in with my personal opinion.

God is God, in my belief the only God. If aliens do exist, He created them and He's their God as well (though he most likely gave them free will as he did us, so their belief of Him is also up to them as it is up to us.)

I have no problem as a Christian believing aliens might be out there. I also have no problem believing they very well may not be out there. I think if it were important to our faith, He would have mentioned them. The fact that He didn't doesn't mean they might not be out there.

Do I think for even one second that aliens could exist without God having created them? No. But that's just my belief. Your mileage may vary.

Inspiewriter

04-23-2007, 07:06 PM

Judg

04-23-2007, 08:05 PM

Here's a fun thought. What if we meet aliens and they are all astonished because we are NOT unanimous in believing in God? What if we're the oddballs in the universe, with our atheists, polytheists, agnostics?

MidnightMuse

04-23-2007, 08:20 PM

I'm pretty sure we ARE the oddballs ! :)

Pat~

04-23-2007, 08:30 PM

Quote:
what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?

You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.

So where in there does it say that man is God's greatest creation? Or anywhere else in the Bible? Maybe I'm just forgetful...

The Bible actually says multiple things about man--that we're created in the image of God, and so the highest order of creation, but also that we're an unbelievably fallen, sorry bunch of creatures (who God happens to love, passionately). So it depends what passage you quote, but both can be supported, as both are true.

C.S.Lewis, Tolkien, and others often speculated about the possibility of life on other planets. I don't see the possibility as necessarily challenging to my faith in any way. I enjoyed Lewis' space trilogy almost as much as the Narnia tales. God is certainly bigger than our sense of space and time, so anything's possible. I do think, though I may be wrong, that if He'd created any other being in His image we'd know about it...and therefore, my instincts tell me that we're His highest order of creation. If aliens are discovered and they turn out to be smarter than us, it wouldn't change that opinion. After all, dolphins are said to be smarter as well.

C.bronco

04-23-2007, 08:36 PM

God created the Universe and everything in it, so I'm told. That would include aliens, nematoads and brussel sprouts.

MidnightMuse

04-23-2007, 08:51 PM

I believe, according to the Book of Phobias, Chapter 2 vs 4: Ye and verily I say unto you, Satan invented brussel sprouts.

AnnieColleen

04-23-2007, 09:15 PM

AzBobby

04-23-2007, 10:44 PM

Remember what "aliens" were for most of human history? Just other humans from other lands. Not that everyone agreed on that point -- even today people categorize some aliens as less human than themselves.

As our Judaism and Christianity arose, so did the multiple religious experiences of peoples all over the globe who had never heard of our faith. As Christianity was designed to spread, it has always been assumed that Christ gave himself for all people of all origins. If another race of beings equally gifted with souls comes along (e.g. from another planet) one can assume a common definition of humanity and salvation between us, without any more than the usual conflicts of tradition between our pre-existing religions and bigotries.

I'm very skeptical of the belief in intelligent beings on other planets evolving by chance -- not out of arrogance or anything like that, it's just that I can't review all the qualifications for life surviving on this planet, added together with the survival of humans, and believe it's terribly common according to everything else I read about the known cosmos. There's too much working against that chance, even with billions of star systems to give it a try. However, even if it's unlikely, it's ridiculous to say it's scientifically impossible -- it's already happened once, so it could happen elsewhere. For the purposes of exploring Christianity through science fiction, it's well worth wondering how our society would approach those questions if proof of other intelligences stared them in the face.

Inspiewriter

04-24-2007, 03:50 AM

I believe, according to the Book of Phobias, Chapter 2 vs 4: Ye and verily I say unto you, Satan invented brussel sprouts.

Yes, and HMO's.

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 08:11 AM

So where in there does it say that man is God's greatest creation? Or anywhere else in the Bible? Maybe I'm just forgetful...

Beat me to it.

Bravo

04-24-2007, 08:33 AM

Ok, on the original question -- what exactly are you asking, Steve? It sounds like you want a character to make the argument that the existence of aliens throws doubt on Christian teaching about God -- yes, no?

i think the existence of aliens would be entirely contradictory to christianity because of what i brought up earlier.

jesus couldnt be their god because he died for man's sins, and was supposed to be the perfect example of a human.

so if he's not their god, then how can he be on the same level as god the father who would be their god?

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 08:42 AM

Genesis tells of the world's beginning.

Revelations tells of the world's end.

Thus do we mistakenly believe that all aspects of physical existence are explained in the Bible: if it ain't in there, it ain't real. Aliens aren't mentioned in the Bible, so they must not exist. Right???

The fact that Bible frequently speaks in both superlatives and absolutes doesn't help any.

One of those pesky absolutes in the Bible is Romans 8:22 which says "All the creation groans." This implies that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE (all the galaxies, etc) have fallen under the curse of Adam's sin.

Did it?

I don't know.

Lewis' Planet Trilogy overtly puts forth the possibility that the sin of Adam only impacted the planet Earth, and that the other planets (Mars and Venus, etc) each stand on their own before God, to either succeed where we failed, or to likewise fall just as we fell.

Tolkien's Elves were supposed to be a non-fallen race, and were his ideal model of what humanity could have/should have been had we never fallen.

Are there other races out there in the cosmos? Are they impacted by Adam's sin?

I think the very fact that the angels (part of God's creation) have not been impacted by Adam's sin suggests such a possibility is valid. Evidently, only that which was put under the headship of Adam (the Earth and everything in it, which he was commanded to subdue) was impacted. This suggests that anything lying beyond the Earth never fell under Adamic subjugation, and therefore suffers no Adamic sin-imapct.

My own feeling is, aliens probably do exist. If they're out there, who cares? To say that a first contact tomorrow would be proof positive that God doesn't exist is about as ludicrous and non-logical as saying a jug of sour milk in my refrigerator is proof positive that cows are useless creatures.

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 08:47 AM

Some christians believe that "aliens" are, in fact, fallen angels that rebelled with Lucifer. They were cast out of heaven and became the devil and demons.

There are dozens of variations on this possibility. I did a lot of web research last year about it. It's amazing and disturbing to read some of the many and varied concepts out there on the lunatic fringes of Chritianity concerning this infamous alien/angel connection.

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 08:58 AM

i think the existence of aliens would be entirely contradictory to christianity because of what i brought up earlier.

jesus couldnt be their god because he died for man's sins, and was supposed to be the perfect example of a human.

so if he's not their god, then how can he be on the same level as god the father who would be their god?

Are you saying only humans here on this planet can know Jesus? He was the "second Adam" and the therefore exclusive gift to this planet (the fallen world of Adam)?

I think that washes only up to a point. The smiling guy with the brown hair and beard, and walking around in Galillee with sandals telling clever stories and healing people was exclusively sent to this planet to redeem this planet's people. But the Word who was with God in the beginning is still God. He's the Third Person, he's very much God, and if he created the Heavens and the Earth, then he is indisputablly the God of all non-Terrans also.

Bravo

04-24-2007, 09:00 AM

Are you saying only humans here on this planet can know Jesus? He was the "second Adam" and the therefore exclusive gift to this planet (the fallen world of Adam)?

based on christian theology, yes.

I think that washes only up to a point. The smiling guy with the brown hair and beard, and walking around in Galillee with sandals telling clever stories and healing people was exclusively sent to this planet to redeem this planet's people.

it would be hard for alien beings to relate to such a guy...

But the Word who was with God in the beginning is still God. He's the Third Person, he's very much God, and if he created the Heavens and the Earth, then he is indisputablly the God of all non-Terrans also.

.....

so the word is jesus which means that jesus also sacrificed his life for alien beings?

is that correct?

Pat~

04-24-2007, 09:06 AM

I think the very fact that the angels (part of God's creation) have not been impacted by Adam's sin suggests such a possibility is valid. Evidently, only that which was put under the headship of Adam (the Earth and everything in it, which he was commanded to subdue) was impacted. This suggests that anything lying beyond the Earth never fell under Adamic subjugation, and therefore suffers no Adamic sin-imapct.

Angels may not have been 'impacted by Adam's sin' but they are free-will creatures who are capable of choosing to rebel (sin), as evidenced by the story of Lucifer. So theoretically aliens existing elsewhere could be in that freewill pre-Adamic state, still capable of choosing sin (if they haven't yet). But on the other hand, they could be just like lower creature forms, incapable of moral choices, and therefore the whole 'sin' issue is moot.

Pat~

04-24-2007, 09:10 AM

so the word is jesus which means that jesus also sacrificed his life for alien beings?

is that correct?

The Word is Jesus, and He sacrificed his life for mankind. He didn't sacrifice His life for all life forms. Even if there were aliens, we don't know if they are 'moral' beings, capable of rebellion against God (sin).

kdnxdr

04-24-2007, 09:14 AM

God created angels. According to the scriptures, a third of the angels rebelled with Lucifer and were ousted from heaven. They then became fallen angels, the Devil and demons. God created them and they have wills. They chose to rebell, reject God as their God. They are damned for eternity and have no hope of redemption.

Man, made in God's image, whereas the heavenly beings were not made in God's image, has redemption afforded to him through the atoning work of Jesus Christ and enters into heirship with Jesus being the first born of many sons, humanity. We enter into that position by the act of a free will that we choose to accept the work of Jesus Christ and His Lordship.

Aliens/fallen angels serve and are under the authority of Satan/Lucifer. Satan and his minions the demons/fallen angels/aliens are vying for the souls of men. There is a spiritual warfare that is going on 24/7 and Satan's objective is to take as many rebellious souls to eternal damnation with him as he can. Humans wage war with aliens/demons/Satan by exercising their free will to say "yes" to God and "No" to the devil.

Zoombie

04-24-2007, 09:25 AM

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 09:30 AM

Here's 10 pages from my current script. It's a tongue-in-cheek look at the possibility that angels and aliens are the same thing.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1287776&posted=1#post1287776

These ten are actally nothing more than a humorous piece of the film's denouement, just after the film's climax.

Bravo

04-24-2007, 09:36 AM

The Word is Jesus, and He sacrificed his life for mankind. He didn't sacrifice His life for all life forms.

so my point is that jesus could not be their god.

he is not the son of god for them, he is not even the "word" since his life is completely inapplicable for them.

Even if there were aliens, we don't know if they are 'moral' beings, capable of rebellion against God (sin).

yea, i'm operating under the assumption that they would be intelligent creatures and as such, be imbued with a soul.

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 09:40 AM

So aliens are devils?

I really want to know, because I'm an atheist...I don't know half of what you folks are talking about. But I've been reading science text books for a long time, and have been waiting for at least a glimpse of alien life in my life time. It's gonna happen, some time, some how. Maybe not physical contact, more likely some kind of laser signal...

So are they devils by Christian belief? Cuase that doesn't sound right to me...

A small (lunatic?) fringe of Christianity has worked out an elaborate explanation as to how angels=aliens. A not-so-small (but still minority) segment of Christianity finds the evdience for aliens compelling, and has only loosely postulated that we humans only mistakenly think these creatures are aliens from other planets/star systems, when in fact they are fallen angels and demons engaging in active deception here on Earth.

This is NOT stuff you're ever gonna find preached from too many pulpits anywhere. It's all fringe speculative stuff, not deemed central to the Christian faith or even of much importance outside of Christian sci-fi and fantasy novels.

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 09:43 AM

so my point is that jesus could not be their god.

he is not the son of god for them, he is not even the "word" since his life is completely much inapplicable for them.

But is not God still always God??

Three questions for you. Please answer all three:

Is God the Father their God?

Is God the Son their God?

Is God the Holy Spirit their God?

Zoombie

04-24-2007, 09:45 AM

A small (lunatic?) fringe of Christianity has worked out an elaborate explanation as to how angels=aliens. A not-so-small (but still minority) segment of Christianity finds the evdience for aliens compelling, and has only loosely postulated that we humans only mistakenly think these creatures are aliens from other planets/star systems, when in fact they are fallen angels and demons engaging in active deception here on Earth.

This is NOT stuff you're ever gonna find preached from too many pulpits anywhere. It's all fringe speculative stuff, not deemed central to the Christian faith or even of much importance outside of Christian sci-fi and fantasy novels.

Fhew. I was worried there for a second. Kinda silly, but I was.

Pat~

04-24-2007, 09:50 AM

so my point is that jesus could not be their god.

he is not the son of god for them, he is not even the "word" since his life is completely much inapplicable for them.

Well, He'd still be the Word, their Creator (John 1:1), so I don't understand how he wouldn't be their God. Now I do agree that much of His earthly life would be inapplicable to them, in that He was sent to earth in human form, in order to communicate God's love and plan of redemption to us. But that doesn't mean He couldn't still be their God, just like He is God of the angels who don't need redemption.

Zoombie

04-24-2007, 09:52 AM

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 09:53 AM

Fhew. I was worried there for a second. Kinda silly, but I was.

BTW, my avatar is Scully. I notice you have Cancer Man.

Zoombie

04-24-2007, 09:54 AM

Hey, it is Scully. Never noticed that before.

What an amusing coincidence.

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 09:54 AM

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 09:58 AM

Zoombie

04-24-2007, 10:00 AM

Pat~

04-24-2007, 10:02 AM

This might sound silly, buy why wouldet Jesus (if he was the son of god. If there is a god) not show up as a Xorquin, or as a Splandee or Vulcan or whatever planet intellegent life was created (if it was created).

Well I think it'd be doubtful that He would, in that we do seem to enjoy a special status as being created 'in God's image,' (as opposed to the rest of creation). In that sense it seems very natural that one of the persons of the Trinity would be 'the Son of Man.' The only two others are the Father, and the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is in spirit form, and we don't know what God the Father looks like, but we can assume He bears at least some resemblance to us if we are said to be created in His image. Therefore, He probably doesn't resemble alien creatures as we think of them.

Remember, He didn't come to earth just to communicate to us. It wasn't just a social visit. He came to redeem us--and for that He had to be both God AND man.

Zoombie

04-24-2007, 10:04 AM

I don't think Jesus could effectivly communicate with beings that live in a liquid nitrogen atompshere if he showed up as a human. No one'd take him seriously, for one thing.

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 10:11 AM

Well everyone was talking about how Jesus came to earth to communicate with us. Wouldn't make much sense if he showed up on Vulcan looking like a human, right? So he'd have to show up as an alien on alien wolds, right?

If there is a god and if Jesus was his son, of course.

Okay. I get ya'.

It's been speculated by Christian sci-fi folks (Tolkien and Lewis included) that Jesus might have had to have done the whole born-in-a-manger thing (folllowed by the whole dies-on-a-cross thing) repeatedly on every single planet in the universe where

1) intelligent soul-posessing beings live
2) those intelligent souls likewise fell from grace

So Jesus probably has been a Vulcan et. al.

One planet at a time, I guess.

And .... one of the many sci-fi speculative suggestions proposed by Christians over the years (during the past 150 years in particular) is that there are MANY planets with intelligent life in the universe. Some of those races fell like Adam, and some "passed the test." And those who "passed the test" were then immediately given the eternal gift of "keeping grace" to prevent them from ever being tempted or from falling in their futures. So they're permanently saved now. And these many different species of beings who posess this magnificent "keeping grace" are (collectively) the angels. And so that's why angels are of many different shapes and species.

There's little or nothing in the Bible to support all of this. Just conjecture (and some very cool sci-fi books down at the Christian book store).

Zoombie

04-24-2007, 10:14 AM

I want to meet the Jesus that showed up at a Jovian planet with intelligent floating gassbags.

Well this has been a fun theological discussion. I think I did pretty well, seeing as how I don't belive a word of it. Well that's not true. I belive in the being nice to people, to not steal and to not kill and to honor my father and my mother. I belive in turning the other cheek and being humble. I just don't belive in god.

I'm a tweaked one, I am.

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 10:25 AM

One of the compelling things about angels is that --depending upon how literally you wanna take certain passages of the Bible--they seem to be immortal, and also probably do not have children. Therefore the number of angels is permanently fixed and static. They neither increase via childbirth, nor decrease via death. The only way they could increase in number would be if God whipped up another batch of angels every now and then. But that's another whole theological can of worms.

Two angels in particular, (Gabriel and Michael) evidently have very long life-spans (if not outright immortality). Gabriel is found in the Book of Daniel and again in the Gospels. That's a time-span of about 600 years. So Gabriel lived NO LESS than 600 years (if you're a literalist). Michael is in the Book of Daniel, and then again in Revelations. And the part in Revelations that has Michael is really a vision of some kind, and that vision might be about the distant future, or else is might be about the ancient past (weighty arguments can be made for both possibilities). If it's the distant future, that makes Michael no less than 2,800 years old. If it's the ancient past, then (depending upo how old you think the Earth is) Michael is anywhere from 6,000 years old to 100 million years old to 20 billion years old (and still going strong). And once again, all of this is ONLY if you are a literalist.

Plot Device

04-24-2007, 10:28 AM

Dancre

04-24-2007, 09:22 PM

Fhew. I was worried there for a second. Kinda silly, but I was.

No, it's not silly, dear. We all have questions and that's ok. I for one, don't believe in aliens. And if there were aliens on earth, then they need to pay taxes, for Pete's sake!! Also, if they are here, then I wish they'd tell me how to get a set stain out of my carpet!! For pity's sake, they have flying saucers but can't get a stain out of carpet?? Intelligent beings, my foot!! Humph!!!

kim

Dancre

04-24-2007, 09:23 PM

I don't think Jesus could effectivly communicate with beings that live in a liquid nitrogen atompshere if he showed up as a human. No one'd take him seriously, for one thing.

you're absolutely right, that's why God became a human, to relate to us.

kim

Bravo

04-25-2007, 09:48 AM

Well, He'd still be the Word, their Creator (John 1:1), so I don't understand how he wouldn't be their God. Now I do agree that much of His earthly life would be inapplicable to them, in that He was sent to earth in human form, in order to communicate God's love and plan of redemption to us. But that doesn't mean He couldn't still be their God, just like He is God of the angels who don't need redemption.

i'm pretty sure according to xian theology, jesus became the son of god when he was born on earth. he was supposed to embody the perfect man, which also means that he was something different from his father (possibly greater??).

without me getting into my problems with the concept of trinity, let's look at this w/in the context of this discussion.

him becoming the son of god (by becoming human), must mean he is different from the god of the aliens.

unless you're suggesting aliens would be worshipping a human that has absolutely no idea what their experience is?

every single aspect of jesus' life would just be irrelevant to them; it's jesus' existence as a man which makes him so revered and worshiped as the son of god.

the existence of aliens would be entirely irreconcilable with christianity.

you can't have beings out there who could not be saved by the son of god. what good is jesus to them?

its for reasons like this that i can really only believe in one universal God, who is the creator of all beings and not limited as a human.

Plot Device

04-25-2007, 07:12 PM

Higgins

04-25-2007, 07:34 PM

So are you saying you do NOT believe in the Trinity?

This is against most of the Councils of the Church since at least 325 AD.

Beware of Heresy! You might be some kind of Arian, Monophysite or Nestorian without even quite knowing it.

Or you could just say the Nicene Creed (in its western version with the "filoque clause", I hope) ...I do every day just to stay on the safe side.

Dancre

04-25-2007, 11:12 PM

Plot Device

04-26-2007, 04:19 AM

So are you saying you do NOT believe in the Trinity?
This is against most of the Councils of the Church since at least 325 AD.

Beware of Heresy! You might be some kind of Arian, Monophysite or Nestorian without even quite knowing it.

Or you could just say the Nicene Creed (in its western version with the "filoque clause", I hope) ...I do every day just to stay on the safe side.

I have no idea if that's a "yes" or a "no."

Higgins

04-26-2007, 04:49 AM

I have no idea if that's a "yes" or a "no."

I have no idea either. I guess the Trinity (and evidently the Nicene Creed) is just not very popular these days.

Pat~

04-26-2007, 05:20 AM

i'm pretty sure according to xian theology, jesus became the son of god when he was born on earth. he was supposed to embody the perfect man, which also means that he was something different from his father (possibly greater??).

without me getting into my problems with the concept of trinity, let's look at this w/in the context of this discussion.

him becoming the son of god (by becoming human), must mean he is different from the god of the aliens.

unless you're suggesting aliens would be worshipping a human that has absolutely no idea what their experience is?

every single aspect of jesus' life would just be irrelevant to them; it's jesus' existence as a man which makes him so revered and worshiped as the son of god.

the existence of aliens would be entirely irreconcilable with christianity.

you can't have beings out there who could not be saved by the son of god. what good is jesus to them?

its for reasons like this that i can really only believe in one universal God, who is the creator of all beings and not limited as a human.

Sorry to get back so late to this thread, Bravo; I was out all day today.

1. Regarding the point about Jesus not being able to 'save' aliens, and therefore not being able to be their God: You're assuming they would need 'saving.' But aliens could exist in a 'sinless' state--either because they are nonmoral beings (like other creatures in God's creation) or because they never experienced a moral 'fall.' So it's possible for aliens to be a part of creation that doesn't need moral forgiveness/redemption.

2. Regarding the fact that Jesus couldn't be their God because He was human (not 'alien'): Jesus could be their God just like he is God of the stars, ants, birds, dolphins, and all other creation. He doesn't have to assume their identity to be their God (as opposed to Savior). There's also an assumption that aliens are worshipping creatures. But again, that's an assumption that they have that human characteristic. And there's the assumption that they couldn't be worshipful of a being that wasn't like them. But God created angels to worship Him; yet they aren't like Him, and are not created in His image. So why couldn't aliens also worship Him, (if they have that capacity)?

3. Regarding Jesus becoming the Son of God at birth: when you get into a study of the Trinity in the Bible, it becomes evident that although Jesus was born on earth as a baby, He existed prior to that in heaven as the Son of God--one third of the Trinity. In John 1 (where Jesus is called 'The Word') and other scripture we read the Jesus was actually an active member of creation--not just the Father. He wasn't 'created' by the Father, but has always existed, one with the Father (and Spirit). He could not be 'greater' than the Father, as that would make the Father less than perfect--less than God. The Trinity is a unity; all co-equal. Each member has a specific role/function, but all are one, triune God.

Does all that help clarify anything, or have I muddled things further? ;-)

Higgins

04-26-2007, 05:49 AM

3. Regarding Jesus becoming the Son of God at birth: when you get into a study of the Trinity in the Bible, it becomes evident that although Jesus was born on earth as a baby, He existed prior to that in heaven as the Son of God--one third of the Trinity. In John 1 (where Jesus is called 'The Word') and other scripture we read the Jesus was actually an active member of creation--not just the Father. He wasn't 'created' by the Father, but has always existed, one with the Father (and Spirit). He could not be 'greater' than the Father, as that would make the Father less than perfect--less than God. The Trinity is a unity; all co-equal. Each member has a specific role/function, but all are one, triune God.

Does all that help clarify anything, or have I muddled things further? ;-)

Point three the Trinity, central mystery of Western and Orthodox Christianity since around 325 AD.

I was feeling pretty disoriented. Gad what is Western Civ without the Trinity? Just who do those Aliens think they are dealing with?

God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made, Being of one substance with the Father, By whom all things were made; and so on ... look out....

McDuff

04-26-2007, 07:12 AM

The creation, the incarnation and the resurrection each represent three parts of the mystery and wonder of Christianity, and each reveal problems with a consideration of a sentient being outside our atmosphere.

Firstly, in the tale of Eden:

The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
and

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
Whether we take the tale explicitly literally or not, the symbolic meaning is overwhelming. The cause of the fall of humanity was the knowledge of good and evil. Looking at the Hebrew the word for knowledge used is "da'ath", literally perception or discernment, the ability to tell the difference, and "good and evil" encompass more than just morality, but the whole gamut of that which is desirable and that which is not. When this knowledge is given to them, God says that man has become -- not been granted, mind, but has become himself of his own accord -- "like one of Us" and that his punishment should be his labour (or if you're a woman, to be pained in childbirth).

Why is this important? Because it was through agriculture that we invented civilisation and through civilisation that we invented science and through science that we invented technology. There is a direct chain of causality from the eating of the tree of knowledge to the space shuttle, and presumably onwards should we ever create transportation able to transport us to distant worlds.

Should we encounter a sentient alien species this could be in only one of two ways -- they come to us or we go to them. Unless we go to them and discover that they are living in a garden free of all moral concern and technological advancement - not even a pair of pants or a trowel - then the question will necessarily arise as to where they got their capacity for labour from (other questions, no less compelling but not relevant to this discussion, would arise in the case where fallen humans land in an alien Eden). Should they visit us in technologically advanced spaceships we have all manner of questions to ask. Did they fall too, and independently, or did the fall of Adam drag them down? Elsewhere in the Bible there is mention made of all the heavens trembling or being afflicted by the sins of man, but it's Psalms and prophets so it all depends on how literally you want to take those. Whatever the answer, I think it hard to make the case that aliens could be technologically advanced explorers without having suffered the same judgement of God and be thus fallen.

However, it is not in the Jewish scriptures that we find the cornerstone of the crisis, but in the very words of Christ Himself:

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
The word forsaken is a powerful one in the Greek as in the English. It speaks of utter abandonment. Strong's lists one usage of the root word as someone left behind after the death of another. It is this scripture which tells us, more than anything, about the true power of the Crucifixion, which was not in the literal death of Christ but in the forsaking of the Son by the Father. After all, to God a physical death with a resurrection in three days time would hardly be any sacrifice at all. That's a holiday. But what of the sacrifice of God Himself? For God said back up there in the beginning that man shall surely die and yet God here is rebelling against His own words.

As Chesterton put it

That a good man may have his back to the wall is no more than we knew already; but that God could have his back to the wall is a boast for all insurgents for ever. Christianity is the only religion on earth that has felt that omnipotence made God incomplete. Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds, Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point--and does not break. In this indeed I approach a matter more dark and awful than it is easy to discuss; and I apologise in advance if any of my phrases fall wrong or seem irreverent touching a matter which the greatest saints and thinkers have justly feared to approach. But in that terrific tale of the Passion there is a distinct emotional suggestion that the author of all things (in some unthinkable way) went not only through agony, but through doubt. It is written, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." No; but the Lord thy God may tempt Himself; and it seems as if this was what happened in Gethsemane. In a garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God. He passed in some superhuman manner through our human horror of pessimism. When the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God was forsaken of God. And now let the revolutionists choose a creed from all the creeds and a god from all the gods of the world, carefully weighing all the gods of inevitable recurrence and of unalterable power. They will not find another god who has himself been in revolt. Nay, (the matter grows too difficult for human speech,) but let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant
to be an atheist.

God turned His back upon God in order to undo His own words and render Himself a liar for His love, to go back to the "surely" He uttered in the past and insert a footnote: "UNLESS that death is broken by Jesus Christ."

This is cataclysm. This is awesome. This is universe defining. And so it rightly makes us wonder, should there be another species with the knowledge of good and evil and the capacity to toil the earth and create technology out there, would they have felt it? One can hardly imagine they did not. The death and resurrection of the creator, acted out more fully in the spiritual heavens to which they would have a connection than in the clay and ashes puppet show on our planet. And if they did not, what means that for them? Did God render Himself a liar merely for us? Does He make and remake the universe anew for every species that exists, when He decides to redeem them (and is that why it took Him four thousand years to get around to us)? Did the same tableau play out simultaneously on every world with a moral species, with every alien group of Pharisees crucifying their own Jesus? Would that work, would Abraham be reproduced too, for the covenant that would eventually find its fulfilment in Christ's incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection to be made on every planet? The questions reel outwards with no answers one way or another. The Bible is mostly silent on this, but then we hear Jesus' final words to the disciples before the ascension:

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
If there is a fallen alien species, then they come under that banner. And as Paul said later:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
How indeed?

So should aliens from another planet come screaming through our atmosphere in advanced spacecraft and land, would it challenge the notions of Christianity? No, it would not, but the Christian would have the obligation to preach to the alien as he preaches to the human. And should the alien species itself be ignorant of the story of Christ, the ramifications would simply be thus: every alien on that world would have been damned to Hell before the arrival on the planet that held the true gospel.

So they'd better get here quick.

Pat~

04-26-2007, 07:29 AM

McDuff, regarding:

Firstly, in the tale of Eden:

and

Whether we take the tale explicitly literally or not, the symbolic meaning is overwhelming. The cause of the fall of humanity was the knowledge of good and evil. Looking at the Hebrew the word for knowledge used is "da'ath", literally perception or discernment, the ability to tell the difference, and "good and evil" encompass more than just morality, but the whole gamut of that which is desirable and that which is not. When this knowledge is given to them, God says that man has become -- not been granted, mind, but has become himself of his own accord -- "like one of Us" and that his punishment should be his labour (or if you're a woman, to be pained in childbirth).

and:

I think it hard to make the case that aliens could be technologically advanced explorers without having suffered the same judgement of God and be thus fallen.

The cause of the fall was an action--disobedience--not knowledge.

It's probably important to note for the sake of your argument that man's punishment in the fall was not labor, but pain (difficulty, stress, sweat, etc.) in labor. Before the fall, man was given labor--the task of taking care of the garden. So work, per se, is not a result of the fall. So the fact that aliens might labor would not mean they had to 'fall.'

Pat~

04-26-2007, 07:46 AM

God turned His back upon God in order to undo His own words and render Himself a liar for His love, to go back to the "surely" He uttered in the past and insert a footnote: "UNLESS that death is broken by Jesus Christ."

I think I'm not following you here. God turned His back at that moment in the crucifixion when Christ bore the sin of the world--because God's holiness could not stand the sight of that sin. But in no way did He 'undo' His words; in fact, the whole life, death, and resurrection of Christ was a fulfilling of His words as set down through the ages in scripture in Old Testament prophecy. God cannot lie. When He said that man shall surely die, He was referring to spiritual death (the judgment of separation from God), not simply physical death (which did not occur immediately, but which entered the world at that point). And from that point on, man was separated from God--until God revealed His plan of redemption.

Zoombie

04-26-2007, 09:20 AM

So should aliens from another planet come screaming through our atmosphere in advanced spacecraft and land, would it challenge the notions of Christianity? No, it would not, but the Christian would have the obligation to preach to the alien as he preaches to the human. And should the alien species itself be ignorant of the story of Christ, the ramifications would simply be thus: every alien on that world would have been damned to Hell before the arrival on the planet that held the true gospel.

So they'd better get here quick.

I have to cut in as a non-believer and say that that is incredibly incredibly incredibly unfair. Firstly, how can morals made to govern humanity possibly apply to alien life forms? Secondly, what kind of god would damn trillions of possible life forms just because they haven't come to Earth? That'd be both moronic, mean spirited and just rude.

If there is a God, I seriously doubt he's going to leave non-humans out to dry. Why create them just to offer then absolutely no hope of making the 'cut?'

EDIT: Oh and please please please tell me if I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong, actually.

McDuff

04-26-2007, 09:31 AM

It's probably important to note for the sake of your argument that man's punishment in the fall was not labor, but pain (difficulty, stress, sweat, etc.) in labor. Before the fall, man was given labor--the task of taking care of the garden. So work, per se, is not a result of the fall. So the fact that aliens might labor would not mean they had to 'fall.'
But "working" a garden that does not cause you pain or sweat or toil is not -- could not be -- the same thing that we consider work. The garden produced food of its own accord, had no weeds, required no tilling or breaking of the soil. What use would Adam have had for a plough or a hoe before the fall? What use for a knife since he had no clothes to cut? What use for knowledge of nitrate fixing since the soil would never be exhausted? Necessity is the mother of all invention, and agriculture was the first necessity.
God turned His back at that moment in the crucifixion when Christ bore the sin of the world--because God's holiness could not stand the sight of that sin.
Well that's one interpretation, but it does not change the cataclysmic fact that God forsake God. You said yourself that in your notion of the trinity God is Tri-Une, three parts to a single divine God. At the point of the crucifixion, one of those parts was separated from the other, to the point of crying out in what can only be called anguish at the separation. This is the fulcrum of the Christian story, the tipping point at which the universe cracked wide open and the past became the future. I think, in all honesty, that the truly awesome implications of what the crucifixion actually means seem to have eluded you slightly. Remember that in Gethsemane Jesus said "Not my will, but yours be done." What was happening at that point? The Son arguing with the Father, asking that the cup be taken away? Although Christ was willing to do what had to be done to fulfil the prophesy one cannot say that at that point He desired it. Surely this cannot but be a glimpse into a more fundamental process taking place behind the curtain. We are not, I think, witnessing a struggle between factions, but we are witnessing the start of a schism, of a genuine crisis in the mind of God as He Himself struggles to do what He always intended to do.
God cannot lie. When He said that man shall surely die, He was referring to spiritual death (the judgment of separation from God), not simply physical death (which did not occur immediately, but which entered the world at that point). And from that point on, man was separated from God--until God revealed His plan of redemption.
But why a plan at all? Why wait for the sin to accumulate for thousands of years and for humans to spread over the world? Why not redeem Adam and Eve immediately if that was His plan all along? Why lose so many to sin and death in the delay of millennia? No, while that explanation is enough to entice the sleepy pew-warmers in your average Protestant denomination it hardly does the concept of the crucifixion justice. A God who loves the world so much that He gave His only begotten son, and who yet does it in such a way that most of that world will never come into the Kingdom? There must be more to it than that, if we are to presume that God is not just arbitrary in His judgements and wilfully condemns the majority to Hell we must also presume that there was a reason beyond mere unwillingness that He held out for so long, that Christ had to come then and there and in that precise manner. And although we cannot know the details, it must all come back to the crucifixion and the rending of the Son from the Father, for what else could it come down to?

Whatever happened behind the scenes, it was bigger than an idle God who allowed Adam to fall and then played chess for millennia upon millennia until the pieces were in place to smoothly and unemotionally call checkmate with a grin of "I had it planned this way all along" on His face. To presume such pays no heed either to the depth of love God has claimed for the people on this planet, or to the sheer existential anguish which Christ suffered in the time from Gethsemane to Golgotha. The character you describe is not that which is described in the Gospels.

AnnieColleen

04-26-2007, 10:08 AM

I have to cut in as a non-believer and say that that is incredibly incredibly incredibly unfair. Firstly, how can morals made to govern humanity possibly apply to alien life forms? Secondly, what kind of god would damn trillions of possible life forms just because they haven't come to Earth? That'd be both moronic, mean spirited and just rude.

If there is a God, I seriously doubt he's going to leave non-humans out to dry. Why create them just to offer then absolutely no hope of making the 'cut?'

EDIT: Oh and please please please tell me if I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong, actually.

[Psst - read Lewis & Chesterton. If you want I'll dig up the name of the Lewis essay, though a lot of the points have been covered here already.]

Morals -- justice, charity, etc. would still apply. The specifics of how they apply could/would differ.

It's quite a jump to say that aliens would automatically be damned. Possibly they would have received revelation through some other means. Possibly they would be in the position of humans in pre-Christian times, who were still redeemed by Christ even though they had no opportunity to receive the fullness of revelation during their lives. Possibly, as was said above, they never fell spiritually. Possibly possibly...it's a whole string of "if"s, and, as I said, quite a jump to assume the worst possible interpretation and use that as an argument against God or Christianity.

AnnieColleen

04-26-2007, 10:12 AM

if we are to presume that God is not just arbitrary in His judgements and wilfully condemns the majority to Hell we must also presume that there was a reason beyond mere unwillingness that He held out for so long

Not going to address the majority of your post here (because it's late and I'm not that articulate just now!), but, in Catholic theology at least (as I said, the perspective I'm coming from), those who lived before Christ are not presumed to be in Hell. (That actually applies more widely, but it looks like you're specifically addressing those who lived before Christ, yes?)

[and, I know the thread has diverged, but I'm still curious what angle the original question was coming from. It was for a WIP -- I assumed fiction, but it doesn't actually say that. I'm wondering how much of all this discussion actually applies to the original question!]

McDuff

04-26-2007, 10:45 AM

McDuff

04-26-2007, 10:48 AM

Possibly possibly...it's a whole string of "if"s, and, as I said, quite a jump to assume the worst possible interpretation and use that as an argument against God or Christianity.
It is a whole string of ifs, but the "if" at the end was what seemed to be the most plausible scenario from the point of view of the OP. IF aliens land and IF they don't already have a Jesus-type story of sin and redemption, that's a theological nightmare. Luckily for the Christians, they haven't landed yet and probably never will.

Pat~

04-26-2007, 05:58 PM

But "working" a garden that does not cause you pain or sweat or toil is not -- could not be -- the same thing that we consider work. The garden produced food of its own accord, had no weeds, required no tilling or breaking of the soil. What use would Adam have had for a plough or a hoe before the fall? What use for a knife since he had no clothes to cut? What use for knowledge of nitrate fixing since the soil would never be exhausted? Necessity is the mother of all invention, and agriculture was the first necessity.

How do you know it required no tilling? IF God originally created work as a good (toil-free) endeavor, it could be that tilling was an enjoyable thing, causing no tired muscles, no blisters, etc., and beneficial to man and soil. To say man had no use for tools before the fall is quite a leap. Surely he'd have use for a knife to cut the vines, etc. It wouldn't be 'work' in that there'd be no sweat, wrestling, thorns, etc., but it would require action on the part of man. And tools would aid his actions.

Well that's one interpretation, but it does not change the cataclysmic fact that God forsake God. You said yourself that in your notion of the trinity God is Tri-Une, three parts to a single divine God. At the point of the crucifixion, one of those parts was separated from the other, to the point of crying out in what can only be called anguish at the separation. This is the fulcrum of the Christian story, the tipping point at which the universe cracked wide open and the past became the future. I think, in all honesty, that the truly awesome implications of what the crucifixion actually means seem to have eluded you slightly. Remember that in Gethsemane Jesus said "Not my will, but yours be done." What was happening at that point? The Son arguing with the Father, asking that the cup be taken away? Although Christ was willing to do what had to be done to fulfil the prophesy one cannot say that at that point He desired it. Surely this cannot but be a glimpse into a more fundamental process taking place behind the curtain. We are not, I think, witnessing a struggle between factions, but we are witnessing the start of a schism, of a genuine crisis in the mind of God as He Himself struggles to do what He always intended to do. I have no argument with Chesterton here. (Except that I would disagree that the earthquake happened at the point of Christ's crying out about being forsaken--it happened upon his death, with the veil of the temple being torn top to bottom as a result.) Regarding Christ's desire for avoiding the crucifixion...one could say BOTH that He desired to avoid it AND that He desired it--because His will was always and completely to do the Father's will. Humanly speaking he wanted to avoid it; divinely speaking, He embraced it. I don't see how the 'implications' of this have eluded me; could you elaborate?

But why a plan at all? Why wait for the sin to accumulate for thousands of years and for humans to spread over the world? Why not redeem Adam and Eve immediately if that was His plan all along? I don't know, though the more I study history, the more I see how it all illustrates 'story' for us in communicating who God is...and maybe since we don't have that direct communication with God since the fall, history is His way of communicating Himself to us. But again, I'd have to say that God's timing is largely a mystery to me, too, though He does say that "in the fulness of time" Christ came to earth.

Why lose so many to sin and death in the delay of millennia? No, while that explanation is enough to entice the sleepy pew-warmers in your average Protestant denomination it hardly does the concept of the crucifixion justice. A God who loves the world so much that He gave His only begotten son, and who yet does it in such a way that most of that world will never come into the Kingdom? There must be more to it than that, if we are to presume that God is not just arbitrary in His judgements and wilfully condemns the majority to Hell we must also presume that there was a reason beyond mere unwillingness that He held out for so long, that Christ had to come then and there and in that precise manner. And although we cannot know the details, it must all come back to the crucifixion and the rending of the Son from the Father, for what else could it come down to?
How do you know that 'the majority' are doomed to hell? First of all, those living prior to Christ were not doomed to hell--they were saved by their faith in God (read Hebrews, esp. ch. 11 where it promises that God has 'prepared a city for them.') Secondly, how do you know that this world might not last for milleniums, if God so wills? Ages that will make 2 milleniums look like a blip. We actually don't know how many will be condemned or saved--though the hard truth is, humanity did not deserve mercy. So however many are saved, it is the grace of God.

Whatever happened behind the scenes, it was bigger than an idle God who allowed Adam to fall and then played chess for millennia upon millennia until the pieces were in place to smoothly and unemotionally call checkmate with a grin of "I had it planned this way all along" on His face. To presume such pays no heed either to the depth of love God has claimed for the people on this planet, or to the sheer existential anguish which Christ suffered in the time from Gethsemane to Golgotha.
I would definitely agree that God is not a 'chess player' who toys with humanity. I'm not sure where you got that from my response.
The character you describe is not that which is described in the Gospels.If I'm not describing the God of the gospels, please show me where I'm off, because that is not my intent.

Plot Device

04-26-2007, 06:14 PM

Pat~

04-26-2007, 06:17 PM

It is a whole string of ifs, but the "if" at the end was what seemed to be the most plausible scenario from the point of view of the OP. IF aliens land and IF they don't already have a Jesus-type story of sin and redemption, that's a theological nightmare. Luckily for the Christians, they haven't landed yet and probably never will.

I'm straining to see the logic in this...sorry. The mandate for Christians is to share the gospel with 'the world' (planet earth--not the universe); with humankind, (not beasts or nonmoral beings). The gospel is the story of humankind's fall from grace, and Christ's redemption of it. IF aliens land, and IF they understand our language, I still don't understand the 'theological nightmare.' If they are a fallen race, God has His own plan of redemption for them all figured out; if they are not fallen, what's the issue?

AnnieColleen

04-26-2007, 06:40 PM

Nope, the population since. At no point in this history of the world has anything even approaching a majority of the population been Christian, even under the broadest definitions. Most people on Earth are damned by the terms of Christian theology.

See what I said above. In at least one major branch of Christian theology (ie Catholic), it is not necessarily true that most people on Earth are damned.

Dancre

04-26-2007, 07:37 PM

But why a plan at all? Why wait for the sin to accumulate for thousands of years and for humans to spread over the world? Why not redeem Adam and Eve immediately if that was His plan all along? Why lose so many to sin and death in the delay of millennia? No, while that explanation is enough to entice the sleepy pew-warmers in your average Protestant denomination it hardly does the concept of the crucifixion justice. A God who loves the world so much that He gave His only begotten son, and who yet does it in such a way that most of that world will never come into the Kingdom? There must be more to it than that, if we are to presume that God is not just arbitrary in His judgements and wilfully condemns the majority to Hell we must also presume that there was a reason beyond mere unwillingness that He held out for so long, that Christ had to come then and there and in that precise manner. And although we cannot know the details, it must all come back to the crucifixion and the rending of the Son from the Father, for what else could it come down to?

There's a very important factor that you've forgotten, McDuff. God doesn't just look over the throne and say, ahh, that's what's happening. He's an interactive God. He moves on his people to spread His plan for redemption. As Pat had said before, God did bring millions into a safe place by their works. There were millions of gentiles who took up the Jewish faith, trusting in the God of Abraham. But when Jesus came, He changed all of that. And remember, God condemns NO ONE to hell, folks make the choice by not accepting Christ's sacrifice, just as they made the choice before Jesus' death and resurection. And honestly, I still don't believe there are aliens out there.

kim

Dancre

04-26-2007, 07:39 PM

I'm straining to see the logic in this...sorry. The mandate for Christians is to share the gospel with 'the world' (planet earth--not the universe); with humankind, (not beasts or nonmoral beings). The gospel is the story of humankind's fall from grace, and Christ's redemption of it. IF aliens land, and IF they understand our language, I still don't understand the 'theological nightmare.' If they are a fallen race, God has His own plan of redemption for them all figured out; if they are not fallen, what's the issue?

I agree, Pat. God is smart enough to have figured out the alien issue, without our opinions. He's soo Wonderful!! But I still think we're the only ones out here.

kim

Pat~

04-26-2007, 08:11 PM

There's a very important factor that you've forgotten, McDuff. God doesn't just look over the throne and say, ahh, that's what's happening. He's an interactive God. He moves on his people to spread His plan for redemption. As Pat had said before, God did bring millions into a safe place by their works. There were millions of gentiles who took up the Jewish faith, trusting in the God of Abraham. But when Jesus came, He changed all of that. And remember, God condemns NO ONE to hell, folks make the choice by not accepting Christ's sacrifice, just as they made the choice before Jesus' death and resurection. And honestly, I still don't believe there are aliens out there.

kim

Just a clarification...I said that many were saved prior to Christ's coming through their faith (which was manifested by their works/actions)...and this was both Jews and Gentiles, as mentioned in Hebrews 11. :)

McDuff

04-26-2007, 08:46 PM

How do you know it required no tilling? IF God originally created work as a good (toil-free) endeavor, it could be that tilling was an enjoyable thing, causing no tired muscles, no blisters, etc., and beneficial to man and soil. To say man had no use for tools before the fall is quite a leap. Surely he'd have use for a knife to cut the vines, etc. It wouldn't be 'work' in that there'd be no sweat, wrestling, thorns, etc., but it would require action on the part of man. And tools would aid his actions.
It's an assumption that man was physiologically much the same as he is now, which I see no reason to doubt. You cannot till soil in the Mediterranean/North African/Middle Eastern region without sweating. It is a physical impossibility for any human being. Similarly tired muscles and blisters are simple physical facts of any labour. The manufacture of tools, also, is labour. The creation of a simple flint knife requires a day's work or more, and since God himself watered and nurtured the Garden at Eden what incentive would Adam have to spend all that time on it?

Regarding Christ's desire for avoiding the crucifixion...one could say BOTH that He desired to avoid it AND that He desired it--because His will was always and completely to do the Father's will.
This cannot be true. You cannot be internally conflicted about something and at the same time always and completely be in line with his will. In fact, I think asserting such a conception in the light of this scripture is tantamount to heresy - there, right in the text, is evidence that your assertion is wrong.
Humanly speaking he wanted to avoid it; divinely speaking, He embraced it.
So... are you saying that Jesus had a split personality and that, for a second, the "human" vessel reappeared and took control of the mouth that had previously been controlled by the divine? You can't realistically schism the human side of the character of Christ from the Divine like that, it negates the concept of Christ being the place where the two concepts meet. Jesus WAS God. He was not a sliver of God driving around in a human body like a robot, He was God in human form. If we can claim to distinguish the emotions of Jesus into "human" and "divine" sides in this instance, when Jesus is crying out directly to the Father, then where else might this peculiar duality of character have taken place? Is this the explanation for the fig tree, with the "human" Jesus short-temperedly using the power of God to curse a tree for being a tree? Doesn't this whole thing cast doubt upon the character of Christ?
I don't see how the 'implications' of this have eluded me; could you elaborate?
It is simple. Unless the crucifixion had more important ramifications, unless it was God Himself who was harmed, then it is a meaningless parlour trick -- it is no sacrifice at all. If the divine part of Christ remained unharmed and it was merely the physical body of Jesus that suffered, what has God given up but a burdensome vessel?

How do you know that 'the majority' are doomed to hell? First of all, those living prior to Christ were not doomed to hell--they were saved by their faith in God (read Hebrews, esp. ch. 11 where it promises that God has 'prepared a city for them.')
For a fraction, yes, for the Jews, but what of the myriad Gentiles?
Secondly, how do you know that this world might not last for milleniums, if God so wills? Ages that will make 2 milleniums look like a blip.
So? At this moment in time the numbers of those who are in Hell must number in many millions by the most favourable interpretations, if not in their billions. And yet Jesus said:
Matthew 18:12-14 (New American Standard Bible)][/SIZE]
"What do you think? If any man has a hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go and search for the one that is straying? "If it turns out that he finds it, truly I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine which have not gone astray."So it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones perish.
It is not the will of the father that one should perish, and the best way to enact that will would, of course, have been to enact the plan for redemption immediately. Since God must act in accordance with His own will, there must be a reason beyond mere choice that God waited so long. To conclude otherwise would paint God as an arbitrary and somewhat uncaring ruler. Unless all those lost were lost from necessity, God chose to lose them. There is no other option.
We actually don't know how many will be condemned or saved--though the hard truth is, humanity did not deserve mercy. So however many are saved, it is the grace of God.
Perhaps not mercy, but many would be hard pushed to say that anyone would deserve an eternity of torment, so unless we are to throw the compassion of God out of the window and make Him worse than arbitrary, into a Tyrant, we must assume a compelling reason that He could not save them. Otherwise we are left believing that He chose to not save them. Who could worship a God like that?
I'm straining to see the logic in this...sorry. The mandate for Christians is to share the gospel with 'the world' (planet earth--not the universe); with humankind, (not beasts or nonmoral beings). The gospel is the story of humankind's fall from grace, and Christ's redemption of it. IF aliens land, and IF they understand our language, I still don't understand the 'theological nightmare.' If they are a fallen race, God has His own plan of redemption for them all figured out; if they are not fallen, what's the issue?

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
The Greek of the bolded part is "pas ktisis", which is "the whole sum of all that has been created". The KJV renders it "every creature", probably because the nature of the word cannot be taken to just apply to human beings (one might think that you cannot evangelise to your dog, but since much hay is made about being an example by works it is at the very least a compelling argument for a scriptural prohibition of cruelty to animals). Should aliens land on Earth they would not be excluded from the Great Commission by dint of mere species, which would mean that God's plan of redemption for them would by necessity be intertwined with His plan of redemption for our species, else how could the two gospels be compatible?

The logic of it comes simply from a reading of the Bible.

See what I said above. In at least one major branch of Christian theology (ie Catholic), it is not necessarily true that most people on Earth are damned.
The Virtuous Pagan thing is a cop out, though, and who qualifies or does not is vague and fuzzy. All have sinned and fallen short, nobody shall come to the Father except through the Son. At the very best these can expect limbo (although that concept has now been done away with). "Not necessarily in Hell" does not equate to "likely not in Hell." The exact numbers of people who are in Hell because their sins were not wiped away by access to a priest for confession is something which nobody dares cast a critical eye over for fear of what the answer may be.

McDuff

04-26-2007, 08:51 PM

Sokal, I asked you a pretty simple "yes/no" question, and you dodged it three times in three posts. You utterly REFUSE to give either a yes or a no to a very very simple question.

And thus ends my conversation with you.

I think the point was that the mystery of the Trinity was, to Sokal, simply one of the very many theological conundrums which a broad reading of the Christian scriptures in the context of the other gnostic and heretical texts of that era throw up at you. It is easy to forget that at Nicea the Church picked a single theology from a broad family of related beliefs, and that if you wish to consider that the motives of the humans on the council had a say in this then the conclusion has to be that they may not have drawn the right conclusions. If you believe that God had a hand in every decision of canon and dogma this question is moot, but if you do not the question "do you believe in the trinity?" is meaningless or even boring.

McDuff

04-26-2007, 09:04 PM

There's a very important factor that you've forgotten, McDuff. God doesn't just look over the throne and say, ahh, that's what's happening. He's an interactive God. He moves on his people to spread His plan for redemption.
I didn't dispute that interpretation. I'm saying that the character of God is defined as someone who wants nobody to perish in Hell. Therefore actions that resulted in people being irredeemable, as many in the Old Testament were, must be assumed to be of sheer necessity.
There were millions of gentiles who took up the Jewish faith, trusting in the God of Abraham.
And millions who did not, and had no choice nor cause to. And Judaism is not an evangelical faith -- in fact, it's one that practices enforced separation in many ways. The only encounters that "the God of Abraham" had with swathes of people in the Old Testament was in destroying them. Where are the Caananites or the Amalekites?
And remember, God condemns NO ONE to hell, folks make the choice by not accepting Christ's sacrifice, just as they made the choice before Jesus' death and resurection.
That's like saying that judges don't condemn people to prison, the people condemn themselves by committing crimes. It tells half the story and removes the concept of a motive force behind the law. Catholicism offers a sketchily apologetic mid-point but the majority of Protestant sects hold that the bar is distinct and absolute -- those who make the grade are saved, those who do not are lost, God's judgement is absolute and there is no appeal.

And honestly, I still don't believe there are aliens out there.
Then the whole question is a bit moot for you, ain't it? ;)

Bravo

04-26-2007, 10:17 PM

pat- i'm busy for the next couple days but hopefully, if this topic is still alive, ill be able to respond to your post. i'm glad mcduff has brought up many of the same issues i have with christian theology.

plot device- no i do not believe in the trinity at all (i thought i already said that?).
i believe in a singular, omnipotent, omniscient God.

Pat~

04-27-2007, 12:05 AM

It's an assumption that man was physiologically much the same as he is now, which I see no reason to doubt. You cannot till soil in the Mediterranean/North African/Middle Eastern region without sweating. It is a physical impossibility for any human being. Similarly tired muscles and blisters are simple physical facts of any labour. The manufacture of tools, also, is labour. The creation of a simple flint knife requires a day's work or more, and since God himself watered and nurtured the Garden at Eden what incentive would Adam have to spend all that time on it?
You see no reason to doubt the assumption that man was physiologically the same before and after the fall? I see every reason to doubt it. The fall is why we are now prey to illness, and every other weakness known to man. The fall affected all of creation, additionally; it could be that the climate was ideally suited to man and his activity prior to the fall. Tired muscles and blisters are a 'fact' now of labor--but pre-fall would NOT have been a fact. The creation of a knife pre-fall would have been the pure joy of creativity without any of the toil we associate with that today. In other words, all the 'good' stuff about satisfying work, and none of the bad. We are told that God watered the garden, but we're also told that He assigned Adam and Eve to take care of it (pre-fall); apparently God wanted this to be a cooperative effort. (Genesis 2:15 "The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.") The 'incentive' was simply to obey and please God. And until the serpent arrived, that was enough.

This cannot be true. You cannot be internally conflicted about something and at the same time always and completely be in line with his will. In fact, I think asserting such a conception in the light of this scripture is tantamount to heresy - there, right in the text, is evidence that your assertion is wrong.
I cannot always be in line with God's will when conflicted, nor can any other human--but Christ could. He could because of his Deity--which, last I checked, was not a heretical belief. 'Right there in the text' is evidence of this assertion, in fact. The same gospels that record his struggle in the garden say this: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to finish his work...I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does... By myself I can do nothing;...for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me." (John 4:34, 5:19, 30). And, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be, and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him" (John 8:28, 29)

So... are you saying that Jesus had a split personality and that, for a second, the "human" vessel reappeared and took control of the mouth that had previously been controlled by the divine? You can't realistically schism the human side of the character of Christ from the Divine like that, it negates the concept of Christ being the place where the two concepts meet. Jesus WAS God. He was not a sliver of God driving around in a human body like a robot, He was God in human form. If we can claim to distinguish the emotions of Jesus into "human" and "divine" sides in this instance, when Jesus is crying out directly to the Father, then where else might this peculiar duality of character have taken place? Is this the explanation for the fig tree, with the "human" Jesus short-temperedly using the power of God to curse a tree for being a tree? Doesn't this whole thing cast doubt upon the character of Christ?
I'm not saying Jesus had a split personality; I'm saying He was Deity; he had a dual nature--both human and Divine. People have written countless words trying to define how it is that Deity can 'work'--the fact is, it defies our complete description. But Christ claimed it, and I believe it, regardless.

It is simple. Unless the crucifixion had more important ramifications, unless it was God Himself who was harmed, then it is a meaningless parlour trick -- it is no sacrifice at all. If the divine part of Christ remained unharmed and it was merely the physical body of Jesus that suffered, what has God given up but a burdensome vessel?
It was no meaningless trick. Christ did physically suffer, die, and rise again. God 'gave up' his only begotten (one-of-a-kind) Son, though he also raised him from the dead. The reason being that the blood of a 'spotless lamb' was the only thing that could atone for sin (CSLewis called this the 'Deep Magic.') So both Christ's divinity and his humanity (his ability to physically die) were deeply essential for the sacrifice to have not been in vain.

For a fraction, yes, for the Jews, but what of the myriad Gentiles? If you read that Hebrews passage you will see that not only Jews are mentioned. Gentiles as well as Jews were saved on account of their faith. (Eg. Rahab, and the early Christian martyrs referenced at the end of the chapter.)

So? At this moment in time the numbers of those who are in Hell must number in many millions by the most favourable interpretations, if not in their billions. And yet Jesus said:

It is not the will of the father that one should perish, and the best way to enact that will would, of course, have been to enact the plan for redemption immediately. Since God must act in accordance with His own will, there must be a reason beyond mere choice that God waited so long. To conclude otherwise would paint God as an arbitrary and somewhat uncaring ruler. Unless all those lost were lost from necessity, God chose to lose them. There is no other option.
It is true, that it was not His will for any to perish. But it was His will to create man with free will, and to not 'inflict' the gift of fellowhip, and later, salvation, on mankind against his will. Now we're heading into a debate about free will and predestination, and though it's an interesting debate, it's one without 'neat' resolution. It's like the Deity. Two seemingly opposing things are both true, but in our finite understanding, must be held in tension and accepted, in the end, by faith.

Perhaps not mercy, but many would be hard pushed to say that anyone would deserve an eternity of torment, so unless we are to throw the compassion of God out of the window and make Him worse than arbitrary, into a Tyrant, we must assume a compelling reason that He could not save them. Otherwise we are left believing that He chose to not save them. Who could worship a God like that?
God chooses to save ALL who will choose Him. That seems to be pretty compassionate to me. Many people get hung up on God's judgment; but the fact is, God has many attributes. He is Good, but not just good; He is Merciful, but not just mercy; He is Just but not only Just. Think of it like a triangle, in which He is all three at the same time, and you start to get an accurate picture of God. His Goodness and perfection demands that He be absolutely just, and intolerant of sin. His Justice demands that there be penalty for sin. His Love compels Him to offer compassion and mercy. Many people have an easy time contemplating worshiping a God who seems all 'goodness and love'--sort of a sugar-daddy figure. But they forget that that His 'goodness' demands that He be absolutely Just. And His justice demands that there be a penalty for sin...though thankfully His mercy is over all, and He's provided the way to satisfy all 3 of these characteristics.

The Greek of the bolded part is "pas ktisis", which is "the whole sum of all that has been created". The KJV renders it "every creature", probably because the nature of the word cannot be taken to just apply to human beings (one might think that you cannot evangelise to your dog, but since much hay is made about being an example by works it is at the very least a compelling argument for a scriptural prohibition of cruelty to animals). Should aliens land on Earth they would not be excluded from the Great Commission by dint of mere species, which would mean that God's plan of redemption for them would by necessity be intertwined with His plan of redemption for our species, else how could the two gospels be compatible?

The logic of it comes simply from a reading of the Bible.
The Greek actually translates as "building," "creation," "creature," or "ordinance." How one determines which of those apply is to look at the scripture in context of the passage. The passage reads:

"He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16)

Obviously the "whoever" means that Jesus is referring to preaching to creatures of humanity, not simply 'creation.' The meaning is clear, too, when comparing this gospel account with the others that mention this. In Matthew 28:18, 19 He tells them to "go and make disciples of all nations" on the earth, baptizing, etc. Again, this refers to humanity.

Should aliens land on earth, they'd be from another world, with their own story of life...would they be included in the great commission? Would they need to be? Would they be 'sinful'--and if so, wouldn't they have their own redemptive plan already in the works? Too much conjecture to say that this would be theologically troublesome at all. My own hunch is that IF aliens were moral creatures, and IF they were 'sinful' or 'fallen' God would have a redemptive plan for them as well. And He'd have visited their world in much the same way, and exercised the same 'Deep Magic'. They wouldn't need our redemptive story; He'd have 'become' one of them, and have given them one of their own redemptive stories based on His love for THEM. Just my own thoughts...

callalily61

04-27-2007, 12:27 AM

Should aliens land on earth, they'd be from another world, with their own story of life...would they be included in the great commission? Would they need to be? Would they be 'sinful'--and if so, wouldn't they have their own redemptive plan already in the works? Too much conjecture to say that this would be theologically troublesome at all. My own hunch is that IF aliens were moral creatures, and IF they were 'sinful' or 'fallen' God would have a redemptive plan for them as well. And He'd have visited their world in much the same way, and exercised the same 'Deep Magic'. They wouldn't need our redemptive story; He'd have 'become' one of them, and have given them one of their own redemptive stories based on His love for THEM. Just my own thoughts...

I'm so glad I'm not the only one thinking along these lines!

Melisande

04-27-2007, 12:30 AM

As the Bible says Man is God's greatest creation, would the existence of aliens prove damaging to Christianity? Obviously I'm not talking about alien mircobes or bugs, but aliens that are mentally and physically superiour to humans. Could such existence cast doubt on there being a God, or a God as we know it, by showing His 'greatest creation' is inferior to the aliens, therefore, He can't be all powerful/knowing, etc? I know this might be difficult, but I'm not looking for proof of God, or how aliens could exist without any detriment to His word, etc, but the opposite -- how to argue that such alien life would impact adversely on Christianity. (I don't know enough about the subject to know if the argument I've used is sound enough.)

It seems to me that aliens, coming to our world, would encounter not only one religion, but a whole variety of belief-systems, and I think that the interesting question should be; what impact aliens landing on this planet would have on all religion. Would such an event maybe even unite people into a single faith?

Even though the WIP is aimed at a Christian audience, my guess is that a book with such a thrilling title will sound very appealing indeed to a lot of people outside the Christian belief-system as well. (I, for instance, would love to read that book when it is finished).

AnnieColleen

04-27-2007, 01:03 AM

The Virtuous Pagan thing is a cop out, though, and who qualifies or does not is vague and fuzzy. All have sinned and fallen short, nobody shall come to the Father except through the Son. At the very best these can expect limbo (although that concept has now been done away with). "Not necessarily in Hell" does not equate to "likely not in Hell." The exact numbers of people who are in Hell because their sins were not wiped away by access to a priest for confession is something which nobody dares cast a critical eye over for fear of what the answer may be.

You were asserting that Christian theology teaches that most people on earth (those without access to learn about Christianity or not practicing it) are damned/irredeemable. Now you're saying "at best they can expect limbo" and "likely in Hell." You're still making broad-brush statements lumping together widely varying beliefs, basing your argument on those statements and using them to tell people here what we believe, even though we're telling you that is not the case.

(This sounds a lot like what some posters were complaining of in a couple of threads recently in the Atheism/NT forum, ironically enough.)

Do you know what the conditions for mortal sin are? Do you know what perfect contrition is?

Pat~

04-27-2007, 01:16 AM

The Virtuous Pagan thing is a cop out, though, and who qualifies or does not is vague and fuzzy. All have sinned and fallen short, nobody shall come to the Father except through the Son. At the very best these can expect limbo (although that concept has now been done away with). "Not necessarily in Hell" does not equate to "likely not in Hell." The exact numbers of people who are in Hell because their sins were not wiped away by access to a priest for confession is something which nobody dares cast a critical eye over for fear of what the answer may be.

McDuff, this quote was in your response to me, but I think you meant it for the person who spoke of it (AnnieColleen). However, I think you should know that there is a vast group of Christians that do not believe that one needs access to an earthly priest for confession of sin, in that we have a great High Priest in Jesus Christ. (Again, see Hebrews.)

AnnieColleen

04-27-2007, 01:20 AM

McDuff, this quote was in your response to me, but I think you meant it for the person who spoke of it (AnnieColleen). However, I think you should know that there is a vast group of Christians that do not believe that one needs access to an earthly priest for confession of sin, in that we have a great High Priest in Jesus Christ. (Again, read Hebrews.)

(This kind of thing is exactly what I've been trying to point out here -- that there is a wide spectrum of specific beliefs even among the Christian community, and that lumping them together as the basis of an argument with no regard for their actual context serves no productive purpose. Thanks for bringing up this example. :) )

Plot Device

04-27-2007, 01:26 AM

plot device- no i do not believe in the trinity at all (i thought i already said that?).
i believe in a singular, omnipotent, omniscient God.

Thank you.

Second question: do you believe that Jesus IS (and always has been) God? If not, then I can understand your position that "Jesus can't save aliens." (I don't agree with it, but I can undertsand it.)

But do you at least believe that GOD can save aliens (if they actualy need saving, that is)?

Dancre

04-27-2007, 02:50 AM

That's like saying that judges don't condemn people to prison, the people condemn themselves by committing crimes. It tells half the story and removes the concept of a motive force behind the law. Catholicism offers a sketchily apologetic mid-point but the majority of Protestant sects hold that the bar is distinct and absolute -- those who make the grade are saved, those who do not are lost, God's judgement is absolute and there is no appeal.

I think, but not sure, that we are talking about the same thing, here. Yes, God is a judging God, but remember in John 3:17 where Jesus said, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 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." Basicallly, Jesus is saying, You believe in Him, you get into heaven. YOu don't, you go to hell, period. So God doesn't pick and chose, you go to heaven, you to hell. Jesus made the way to heaven. It's done, completed. That's why Jesus said, It is finished, before He died. Now if Joe Smith says I don't believe in Jesus and he goes to Hell, who sent him there? God? Or himself? Think of it this way: Jesus is the ticket to heaven. If one has the ticket, they go directly to heaven. No, ticket, go to Hell. Who sent that person? God or himself?

This cannot be true. You cannot be internally conflicted about something and at the same time always and completely be in line with his will. In fact, I think asserting such a conception in the light of this scripture is tantamount to heresy - there, right in the text, is evidence that your assertion is wrong.

Actually, Jesus was in line with the Father's will, yet didn't want to do it. Luke 22:42 says: 22:42 "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done." 22:43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 22:44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. 22:45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 22:46 "Why are you sleeping?" he asked them. "Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation."
The thing you are forgetting is God gives His children the strength to do His will. Phillipians 2:13 says, For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. In other words, God gives His children the strength to do His will. Remember, God is an interactive God, who helps and strengthens His children.

Quote:
And honestly, I still don't believe there are aliens out there.
Then the whole question is a bit moot for you, ain't it? ;)

Yeap, but I love Jesus so much and love talking about Him. So I'll stick around. :P Plus, I'm here to help the OP with questions on christianity.

kim

McDuff

04-27-2007, 03:49 AM

Before I address anything else Pat, I'm a-gonna say this:
However, I think you should know that there is a vast group of Christians that do not believe that one needs access to an earthly priest for confession of sin, in that we have a great High Priest in Jesus Christ.
That? Really patronising. And unnecessarily so. Do you think it's likely that someone who reads the Bible with three translations and a copy of Strong's side by side is the kind of person who missed that there are different sects within Christianity? I mean, just thinking about it for a second, can you see how that would make sense?

I'm trying to engage in a reasonable and fairly detailed textual discussion of the scripture and the implications held therin with a Protestant of some nature (I'm guessing Baptist based on limited evidence) and a Catholic. It's hard enough trying to carve a path between the various disagreements in metaphysics between Christian sects anyway, it would be nice if you could possibly see your way to not talking down to me when, as you say, you can just assume I'm talking to the Catholic.

I mean, what were you hoping to prove with that. The point doesn't matter anyway -- if they don't have access to a Catholic Priest for confession it's just as likely they don't have access to a Protestant evangelist, isn't it? That makes the point doubly patronising.

Now, onto the rest:

McDuff

04-27-2007, 04:29 AM

You were asserting that Christian theology teaches that most people on earth (those without access to learn about Christianity or not practicing it) are damned/irredeemable. Now you're saying "at best they can expect limbo" and "likely in Hell." You're still making broad-brush statements lumping together widely varying beliefs, basing your argument on those statements and using them to tell people here what we believe, even though we're telling you that is not the case.
Some of it does. I'm not saying this is what anyone believes. I'm looking at the text to try and seriously answer a very specific question asked by the OP and trying to be as inclusive as possible to Catholic faiths but, frankly, where there is serious disagreement between Protestant and Catholic interpretations I'm tending to veer towards Protestant because that's where the main bulk of my education lies. I'm not telling you what you believe, although I am offering my interpretation on it (it's the only one I have). If you would like to address the issue of Aliens invading Earth from a Catholic perspective you are more than welcome to do so.

Forgive me if I'm struggling to find the middle path between the conflicting theologies here. Vast swathes of Christian theologies do interpret the scriptures according to how I'm using it. But, even going with then full range and saying that everybody has a chance to be right, at best we'd say that the Catholic belief would indicate would be that aliens would be in the same category as "virtuous pagans" like Muslims and Buddhists who had lived a good life. As such, you'd still have the obligation to evangelise the gospel to them. Although, honestly, I'd advise that you get together with the Protestants and work out what you believe before you try and convert the aliens to it.

McDuff

04-27-2007, 04:54 AM

Basicallly, Jesus is saying, You believe in Him, you get into heaven. You don't, you go to hell, period. So God doesn't pick and chose, you go to heaven, you to hell.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm also saying that such a judgement is harsh and vicious. (CATHOLICS NEED NOT READ THE NEXT PART) Most Protestant sects hold that it is only through Grace that one is saved, so that, say, many people who I knew who were good, kind, generous people but who purposefully rejected the Christian Gospel because it made no sense to their personal worldview, not because they were venal sinners who loved to murder puppies, are now in Hell, judged in the same accord as murderers and rapists, suffering torment for all eternity with no hope of reprieve. That's God's perogative and God's authority and I do not question that the creator of the universe would have such authority. But in order to fit with the character of God as being compassionate and loving we have to assume that there must be a reason for it other than He just decided it had to be that way. If the reason is "Because I'm God And I Say So And What Are You Going To Do About It Anyway Wee Man?" (See: Job) then that is not a God of compassion, but a Tyrant, and such a God would not be worthy of our worship. This is why I make the argument for the crucifixion being fundamentally important, because it is the only place that we see a sliver of evidence that the work of God was anything but arbitrary, that we see a glimpse into a world beyond the mere physical actions of Jesus that indicates maybe, maybe, this was a sacrifice for God, that achieving salvation was such a monumental achievement that it was a struggle even for the divine creator of all things.

Because if that is not the case, the alternative is horrific.

Actually, Jesus was in line with the Father's will, yet didn't want to do it.
Um, that's what I said. The will of the Father and the will of the Son were divergent, although Jesus at all points submitted to the Father's will. All through the gospel we see Jesus establishing that He, despite being of the same essence as God, has a distinct personality, which sometimes was pained and anguished at the things He was required to do by the father,

It's not as if the difference between doing something you want to do but doing something you don't want to do but know to be right is so hard to work out.

The thing you are forgetting is God gives His children the strength to do His will. Phillipians 2:13 says, For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. In other words, God gives His children the strength to do His will. Remember, God is an interactive God, who helps and strengthens His children.
Yeah, and what has this got to do with Jesus? Jesus is an entirely different animal to your common and garden Christian, would you not say, on account of the whole divine thing?

McDuff

04-27-2007, 05:39 AM

You see no reason to doubt the assumption that man was physiologically the same before and after the fall? I see every reason to doubt it. The fall is why we are now prey to illness, and every other weakness known to man. The fall affected all of creation, additionally; it could be that the climate was ideally suited to man and his activity prior to the fall. Tired muscles and blisters are a 'fact' now of labor--but pre-fall would NOT have been a fact. The creation of a knife pre-fall would have been the pure joy of creativity without any of the toil we associate with that today. In other words, all the 'good' stuff about satisfying work, and none of the bad.
Have you ever done hard work? Do you know why it's satisfying? Because it's work, and because it's hard. If there is no struggle there is no cost and therefore no satisfaction.

In order to prove your point you're having to argue that the fall was so dramatic that Adam and Eve weren't sinless and innocent humans, but completely different species altogether, both physiologically and psychologically, something which may be an interesting theory but requires rather too much speculation for my view, and also seems to be somewhat disturbing when it comes to extrapolation. If a state of "sinlessness" changes the human personality so much that it more closely resembles a kind of euphoric, robotic daze then it's really hard to envisage that being a good or desirable thing. Given that this is a state we will presumably be in when we reach Heaven, I can't say that the notion of having my entire personality stripped down and rebooted like that really fits my idea of a worthwhile eternal life.

I cannot always be in line with God's will when conflicted, nor can any other human--but Christ could. He could because of his Deity--which, last I checked, was not a heretical belief.
Even being deity does not mean you can simply insert a "because I said so" clause into logic. Were the desires of the son in line with the desires of the father? No, but the son nonetheless submitted to the desires of the father. You can choose to fob that off if you like because it doesn't quite fit how you thought it went, or you can take a fresh look and see just how powerful a metaphysical statement that is. You don't have to believe that Christ didn't have a "dual nature" but if He had one personality then He had one will. That's how it works.

It was no meaningless trick. Christ did physically suffer, die, and rise again.
Yes, but the dude was God. Let me tell you, if you told me that I'd have to go through a day of pain but then I'd be free of this mortal body and have all the power of the creator of the universe, I don't really think it would be that much of a choice for me. What is a sacrifice for us puny mortals is nothing to God.

So both Christ's divinity and his humanity (his ability to physically die) were deeply essential for the sacrifice to have not been in vain.
Right. WHY? I don't expect the nuances of God to be explained, but as I keep saying, we must assume that it happened this way for a reason beyond "Just Because I'm God." A spotless lamb was required to forgive sins? But God is omnipotent, there is nothing beyond Him, He created the Heavens and the Earth, why could He not simply bypass the whole process and, y'know, just forgive people? I argue that there must have been a reason beyond that which we assert on the surface, or else it comes down to God performing parlour tricks to fulfil an arbitrary requirement which He made up Himself anyway. I have offered up the interpretation of what I think that requirement might have been, that there was something fundamental in the universe which even God Himself struggled to break and remake to obtain the forgiveness of sins.

As I said, the alternative, the full implications of what you claim, are actually not very pleasant to consider.
If you read that Hebrews passage you will see that not only Jews are mentioned. Gentiles as well as Jews were saved on account of their faith. (Eg. Rahab, and the early Christian martyrs referenced at the end of the chapter.)
How many people were there in Caanan? Out of these God has saved one, you say? How many Amalekites are mentioned in Hebrews? How many citizens of the Pre-CE Roman Empire? How many Gauls, Picts, Mauri, Mongols or Mayans?

Rahab plus a couple of early Christian martyrs is but a drop in the ocean compared to those who were lost.

For the sake of both our sanities, I'm not getting into the predestination vs. free will thing, especially since you have already staked out territory in the "In Favour of Cognitive Dissonance" side of the map. I'm not going to challenge that so we'll let that ride.

I also think that ktisis is stronger and more inclusive than you claim, but we'll leave the futzing over nuances of Ancient Greek to the more able scholars. I think aliens capable of cognisance would be included in the great commission, you disagree. It's all shooting the breeze anyway, isn't it, because they're not here and it's not a real concern.

However, from a literary point of view, it's certainly more interesting for the alien species to suddenly throw conflict into the mix. Even if the view I've espoused here is wrong (and with the vast array of Christian beliefs it's definitely wrong to someone), it's a more compelling narrative to have it proposed and tried and rejected in the end than "oh, those aliens are here but they don't really affect us Christians at all. Lalala." Especially if you're trying to write it from a Christian perspective!

AnnieColleen

04-27-2007, 05:47 AM

Some of it does. I'm not saying this is what anyone believes. I'm looking at the text to try and seriously answer a very specific question asked by the OP and trying to be as inclusive as possible to Catholic faiths but, frankly, where there is serious disagreement between Protestant and Catholic interpretations I'm tending to veer towards Protestant because that's where the main bulk of my education lies. I'm not telling you what you believe, although I am offering my interpretation on it (it's the only one I have).

Gotcha. I wasn't sure how serious the original post was; "they'd better get here quick" sounded a bit like a joke and that made me wonder if the rest of the post was seriously what you understood Christianity to believe, or the usual kind of stereotypes that make the rounds. (But, it does really feel like you're coming in here and insisting that your understanding of Christian theology is what Christians believe no matter what people here may say -- whether or not that's your intent.)

Honestly, I'm not sure how many Protestants would agree with the idea you're presenting either (most/all of those I know wouldn't). But as you said, that's not where my education is, so I'll let others handle that issue.

Really, had that original statement been qualified so that it didn't have that all-inclusive implication, it would have been fine. The whole "God vs. Aliens" situation is speculative, so no harm in speculating based on one particular theological interpretation. But there is harm in making a generalization that reinforces a negative impression to those reading who may not be aware of or clear on the variations that exist, which is why I protested.

(Also, apologies if I sounded snippy. I was posting quickly & may not have edited well enough for tone. :) )

McDuff

04-27-2007, 07:39 AM

Also, I've spent too long arguing this point now so whoever wants to post next should do so without much expectation of a serious response. I have a screenplay to finish, you know!

Pat~

04-27-2007, 08:17 AM

Before I address anything else Pat, I'm a-gonna say this:

That? Really patronising. And unnecessarily so. Do you think it's likely that someone who reads the Bible with three translations and a copy of Strong's side by side is the kind of person who missed that there are different sects within Christianity? I mean, just thinking about it for a second, can you see how that would make sense?

I'm trying to engage in a reasonable and fairly detailed textual discussion of the scripture and the implications held therin with a Protestant of some nature (I'm guessing Baptist based on limited evidence) and a Catholic. It's hard enough trying to carve a path between the various disagreements in metaphysics between Christian sects anyway, it would be nice if you could possibly see your way to not talking down to me when, as you say, you can just assume I'm talking to the Catholic.

I mean, what were you hoping to prove with that. The point doesn't matter anyway -- if they don't have access to a Catholic Priest for confession it's just as likely they don't have access to a Protestant evangelist, isn't it? That makes the point doubly patronising.

Now, onto the rest:

McDuff, first of all, let me apologize if you felt patronized. That wasn't my intention at all--I was sincere in that comment. And I wasn't sure if you were addressing me or someone of a theological different persuasion in that the quote was addressed to me. I also don't know where you're coming from, as I don't know you--didn't know if your background was Catholic, regardless of the fact that you now seem agnostic or atheisitic. Regardless, it's not my style to talk 'down'--I only intended to clarify, for the sake of the argument, that for a large segment of Christianity, an earthly priest is unnecessary for confession.

And it does make a difference, in that the Protestant position (I'm nondenominational) is that although Jesus was the Word made flesh, God has spoken, speaks, and will continue to speak, from creation to the end of the world, so that 'they are without excuse'--evangelist or no.

Pat~

04-27-2007, 09:30 AM

Have you ever done hard work? Do you know why it's satisfying? Because it's work, and because it's hard. If there is no struggle there is no cost and therefore no satisfaction. Yes, I've done hard work. And I agree it's satisfying because it's hard--the brain enjoys a challenge, and the other muscles in your body enjoy it, too. It's just the aches, sweat, breathlessness, blisters, etc., that we don't like. The first is 'work' the way it was designed to be experienced; the second is 'work' after the fall, in my opinion.

In order to prove your point you're having to argue that the fall was so dramatic that Adam and Eve weren't sinless and innocent humans, but completely different species altogether, both physiologically and psychologically, something which may be an interesting theory but requires rather too much speculation for my view, and also seems to be somewhat disturbing when it comes to extrapolation. If a state of "sinlessness" changes the human personality so much that it more closely resembles a kind of euphoric, robotic daze then it's really hard to envisage that being a good or desirable thing. Given that this is a state we will presumably be in when we reach Heaven, I can't say that the notion of having my entire personality stripped down and rebooted like that really fits my idea of a worthwhile eternal life.
I'm saying they were not only in a state of spiritual perfection, but in a state of physical perfection. The fall had both spiritual and physical repercussions. They weren't a different species (still human), but just perfect. Same with the rest of creation...perfect environment, completely in harmony with man's designed purpose to work the garden.

Nothing was mentioned about them being in a robotic daze, however. Not sure how you got that...I'm definitely in the camp that they had free will, and plenty of personality as well.

Even being deity does not mean you can simply insert a "because I said so" clause into logic. Were the desires of the son in line with the desires of the father? No, but the son nonetheless submitted to the desires of the father. You can choose to fob that off if you like because it doesn't quite fit how you thought it went, or you can take a fresh look and see just how powerful a metaphysical statement that is. You don't have to believe that Christ didn't have a "dual nature" but if He had one personality then He had one will. That's how it works.I'm not sure that we're disagreeing here. We both say that Christ went through a time of agony in the garden, not wanting to experience his upcoming crucifixion, but that at the same time his will was to do the will of the Father. Classic conflict. In that struggle, the desires were both to avoid pain and separation from the Father, AND to do the Father's will.

I was responding to this statement by you:

This cannot be true. You cannot be internally conflicted about something and at the same time always and completely be in line with his will. In fact, I think asserting such a conception in the light of this scripture is tantamount to heresy - there, right in the text, is evidence that your assertion is wrong.

I'm saying that even during conflict, Christ ALWAYS was in line with the will of the Father. It was impossible for Him not to be so, in that He did not sin. (Again, the John references quoted earlier..."I always do what pleases Him.")

Yes, but the dude was God. Let me tell you, if you told me that I'd have to go through a day of pain but then I'd be free of this mortal body and have all the power of the creator of the universe, I don't really think it would be that much of a choice for me. What is a sacrifice for us puny mortals is nothing to God. And yet in another sense it was everything to Christ at the human level. And I think the physical pain was the least of the pain for Him--I think that brief moment of separation from the Father that you quoted about re Chesterton was THE absolute worst pain for the Son...that moment when he bore the sins of the world, past, present, and future, and the Father turned His back.

Right. WHY? I don't expect the nuances of God to be explained, but as I keep saying, we must assume that it happened this way for a reason beyond "Just Because I'm God." A spotless lamb was required to forgive sins? But God is omnipotent, there is nothing beyond Him, He created the Heavens and the Earth, why could He not simply bypass the whole process and, y'know, just forgive people? I argue that there must have been a reason beyond that which we assert on the surface, or else it comes down to God performing parlour tricks to fulfil an arbitrary requirement which He made up Himself anyway. I have offered up the interpretation of what I think that requirement might have been, that there was something fundamental in the universe which even God Himself struggled to break and remake to obtain the forgiveness of sins. Yes, I think we're in agreement here. Have you ever read Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? He does a good job of illustrating how the "Deep Magic" had to be satisfied even by God Himself--who set it in motion. It's not God doing parlor tricks; it's God being God, being consistent with His own nature and the laws He Himself set in motion from all eternity.

How many people were there in Caanan? Out of these God has saved one, you say? How many Amalekites are mentioned in Hebrews? How many citizens of the Pre-CE Roman Empire? How many Gauls, Picts, Mauri, Mongols or Mayans?

Rahab plus a couple of early Christian martyrs is but a drop in the ocean compared to those who were lost. Again, I don't have an answer for you on why x# of people were 'lost' other than the fact that they refused to seek God. I'm not simply in the camp of Predestination, as you've noted. I'm in the the camp of the cognitive dissonance of Predestination/Free Will. You've read the Bible; you know it's clear that man is damned if he is damned on the basis of rejecting the truth (Romans); you also have read about how God has a 'chosen' people (OT) or the 'elect' (NT). The two are in a tension together, and both are true, though I thank you for sparing me the debate. ;)

I also think that ktisis is stronger and more inclusive than you claim, but we'll leave the futzing over nuances of Ancient Greek to the more able scholars. I think aliens capable of cognisance would be included in the great commission, you disagree. It's all shooting the breeze anyway, isn't it, because they're not here and it's not a real concern. Actually, I'm not sure that we disagree on this issue. It's just that my instincts tell me that they/their world would have their own visitation from a personal God, and I wouldn't have to worry about them. But you know, if they came to earth, I would likely tell them about Christ (if they understood my language), as I do everybody else. I imagine that a debate with them would be beyond interesting. :D

However, from a literary point of view, it's certainly more interesting for the alien species to suddenly throw conflict into the mix. Even if the view I've espoused here is wrong (and with the vast array of Christian beliefs it's definitely wrong to someone), it's a more compelling narrative to have it proposed and tried and rejected in the end than "oh, those aliens are here but they don't really affect us Christians at all. Lalala." Especially if you're trying to write it from a Christian perspective! Yes, conflict is interesting; but from a literary point of view, you want to make it believable, too. So you'd want to address what the conflict is from a consistently Christian perspective.

And this has been interesting...thanks for the debate, McDuff.

Roger J Carlson

04-27-2007, 05:11 PM

McDuff

04-27-2007, 07:02 PM

So you'd want to address what the conflict is from a consistently Christian perspective.
Do you think there is such a thing?

Edit: and to reiterate, I'm not here to start a fight about which brand of Christian theology is the right one. While I'm not a Christian I've spent a long time in the books and this is one of those issues that I actually had prior experience discussing, hence why I thought I had something to contribute (even if some of it was based on the interpretations that I find most compelling, rather than somewhat more accepted American theologies which I do not find compelling at all). But in discussion of "how would factor X affect Christians in fiction" it must surely be agreed that there isn't just one set of beliefs called "Christian" and that the disagreements within the category must come into play if literature is to be realistic at all. Would aliens unify religion? Ironically, I think this could only be the case if they were hostile and gave people something to unite against without thinking about the differences in theology. A peaceful, enlightened group of aliens would almost certainly cause enough debate to bring about more schisms and divisions.

Pat~

04-27-2007, 08:27 PM

Do you think there is such a thing?

Good question. I think there is, in an ideal sense, though it's likely none of us are 'there' yet. (At least if someone's nailed it--apart from the creeds--I don't know about it yet.) Some things are shrouded in mystery. But I guess the main thing is for a Christian to remain consistently true to what they do know or feel convinced is true. So that in a fiction work, you'd want a character to remain fairly consistent to whatever Christian world view he embraced--unless, of course, he had some 'enlightenment' along the way.

Edit: and to reiterate, I'm not here to start a fight about which brand of Christian theology is the right one. While I'm not a Christian I've spent a long time in the books and this is one of those issues that I actually had prior experience discussing, hence why I thought I had something to contribute (even if some of it was based on the interpretations that I find most compelling, rather than somewhat more accepted American theologies which I do not find compelling at all). But in discussion of "how would factor X affect Christians in fiction" it must surely be agreed that there isn't just one set of beliefs called "Christian" and that the disagreements within the category must come into play if literature is to be realistic at all. Would aliens unify religion? Ironically, I think this could only be the case if they were hostile and gave people something to unite against without thinking about the differences in theology. A peaceful, enlightened group of aliens would almost certainly cause enough debate to bring about more schisms and divisions.

I've appreciated your thought-provoking contributions, McDuff. And just to clarify, I'm pretty ecumenical in my beliefs, and do allow that there's a lot of room for variance in many "Christian" beliefs. I agree with what you said that the various responses could add an element of realism to literature, too.

Dancre

04-27-2007, 08:45 PM

Yeah, and what has this got to do with Jesus? Jesus is an entirely different animal to your common and garden Christian, would you not say, on account of the whole divine thing?

Um, Jesus IS God so it's got everything to do with Jesus. He isn't an entirely different animal to the average Christian. I don't know of any born again Christain who doesn't see Jesus as God. If God is giving strength, then it's Jesus who is giving strength. Jesus IS God, the creator of the universe, the judgemental God of the OT and the lamb of the NT.

But God is omnipotent, there is nothing beyond Him, He created the Heavens and the Earth, why could He not simply bypass the whole process and, y'know, just forgive people? I argue that there must have been a reason beyond that which we assert on the surface, or else it comes down to God performing parlour tricks to fulfil an arbitrary requirement which He made up Himself anyway. I have offered up the interpretation of what I think that requirement might have been, that there was something fundamental in the universe which even God Himself struggled to break and remake to obtain the forgiveness of sins.

God is holy, He can't stand in the presense of sin. Adam disobeyed God when he ate from the tree of life. Sin entered the world. Now man was separated from God forever, which broke His heart. Someone had to take the sin from Man, so Jesus rose His hand and said I'll do it. God created this 'plan' for the simple reason, He loves us too much to let us be separated from Him forever. You have all kinds of interesting arguments, McDuff, and I'm sure you have books to back up those arguments. But the one single factor you have forgotten is God's unconditional love for a sinful race. It broke His heart that we were separated from Him, So God came down as a man, Jesus, and took the blame of Adam's sin, OUR SIN, making man, in God's eyes, spotless. That's the one factor that is missing from all these arguements. And that's why God did what He did, His intense love for us. I've been a born-again Christain since 1988 and never once did I ever think of leaving His side nor would I leave His side even if aliens popped into my livingroom. Where could I go to find someone who loves me that much? Not anywhere that I know.

As for the original OP question: Would aliens dropping on earth impact born-again Christians? PFFF!!! Please!! Everyone and their brother have dropped junk into the christain arena waiting with glee in their eyes to see christians turn from Jesus. But to no avail. Jesus is real, alive and loves His creation very much. Nothing will separate us from Him.

kim

Pat~

04-27-2007, 09:15 PM

In response to the OP...

I know this might be difficult, but I'm not looking for proof of God, or how aliens could exist without any detriment to His word, etc, but the opposite -- how to argue that such alien life would impact adversely on Christianity.

It'd be difficult, if not impossible to argue that--at least from a Christian standpoint. It'd be similar to trying to argue about how the persecution of early Christians under Nero negatively impacted Christianity. Christianity looks beyond what is immediately seen, and recognizes the sovereignty of God in all events, so even things which might cause disequilibrium are seen to work for the good of those that love God (eg. the persecution contributing to the spread of Christianity).

If you're looking for specific beliefs that would be negatively impacted, I can't think of any right off the bat, Steve. I guess I'd need to know specifically what you were thinking of regarding what's in your book.

III

04-27-2007, 10:30 PM

Let me just remind everyone that the origin purpose of this thread was to question (in a fictional sense) whether the arrival of aliens on Earth would negatively impact Christian beliefs. Let's keep it to that, okay?

Boy am I ever late to this party! On the original question (which is why I'm quoting Roger above), I think God already gave us the master key to unlock all such speculative questions. Simply put, the answer is "love". If aliens show up, show them God's love. If your brother disagrees with your theology, show him God's love. If someone attacks you, show them God's love.

Jesus didn't try to equip us for every crazy thing that would come our way (the internet, abortion, space travel, parallel universes). He just emphasized the paramount importance of showing love. God is powerful enough to take care of the rest. He already told us the solution to all the riddles of the universe. The solution is "love".

That's not to say we shouldn't explore the riddles and debate and discuss them. I love "what if" topics like this! I love the deep mysteries of scripture and of the universe. But let's never lose sight of the simple answer that we've already been given.

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Love never fails.

Plot Device

04-28-2007, 03:45 AM

If aliens arrived tomorrow Christianity would suffer the following schisms:

1) those who say it's all a hoax of the governemnt or of terrorists
2) those who say the aliens are demons in disguise
3) those who want to try and get the aliens saved
4) those who want to destroy the aliens for no reasons having very much to do with religion/the Bible

and a SMALL, tiny, itsy-bitsy schism would be:

5) those who feel the aliens are proof that there is no God and so now they want to chuck their faith completely.

Sean D. Schaffer

04-28-2007, 09:55 AM

Let me just remind everyone that the origin purpose of this thread was to question (in a fictional sense) whether the arrival of aliens on Earth would negatively impact Christian beliefs. Let's keep it to that, okay?

Bolding Mine.

I don't think it really would impact Christian beliefs negatively if aliens landed on Earth. Christian beliefs might change, but I see no reason they would be negatively affected.

I mean, where in the Bible do we find "There are no alien life forms in existence"? Sure, G-d does not mention them, but this does not mean they don't exist. The Bible never mentions the New World, but it is still here.

My personal thought is, if anything the dross of people's beliefs would be skimmed away, leaving the pure silver to shine through. I've found this to be true within my own life, as I've continued searching the Scriptures for the answers I'm seeking. A lot of the beliefs I've held all my life have been challenged and quite frankly, shaken to their foundations. Some of the foundations in my life were made of sand, and needless to say, the things I built upon them fell greatly.

So I think it will be with a lot of people if aliens ever do land. Beliefs will be challenged, and traditions will be shaken to their very foundations. If the traditions and the beliefs are on a solid foundation, they will stand. If not, they'll fall. What truly matters is not the beliefs themselves, but rather what those beliefs are built upon.

small axe

05-11-2007, 06:51 PM

Well, this was fascinating reading, and being banned kept me out of it.

Yay, banning.

Anyway, it's probably a done thread, but can I add?

I don't see why "aliens" per se damage Christianity in the least: Scripture tells us that the Word existed, and only later became or was made 'flesh' ... in this instance "Earthling" flesh but perhaps on alien worlds, alien flesh. The parables of the water or fire creatures of alien worlds would teach the morality of alien souls, not ours ... no problem.

I don't see why alien species couldn't build saucers, as if saucers=sin. We cannot know what the Divine Plan was for us in Eden (from which we are Fallen, defective wrecks) ... but the Trees had properties (also perhaps Divinely Planned): the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil actually "did something", actually imparted that (tho again, perhaps in some defective Fallen form) -- so it wasn't "Eat it and God will punish you" it was "Eat it wrongly and there are unfortunate results"

In small doses, it's a good cure perhaps ... in wrong doses (or taken prematurely) it's destructive.

Equally, the Tree of Immortality was there to impart something Divine ... but used after the Fall would trap human souls in an eternal Fallen state. Exile from Eden was an act of mercy, perhaps.

Alien races, who didn't Fall, might know both Good&Evil, yet chose Good and thus be Immortal and Good.

Or they might be diabolic "false angels of light"

I cannot provide a definite reference, but I think I've heard that in the Second Vatican Council it was decided that the Church need not worry about "converting" Aliens, based on the philosophy that God will have His own Divine Plan for alien worlds.

I think the most damaging thing to human civilization would not be for the arriving aliens to be agnostic (I'd hold that an advanced scientific culture could not be actually atheistic, but only agnostic) -- but rather for the vastly-technologically-advanced aliens (hey, they got here, they've got us beat) to be ... "religious" in an unpleasant way.

I don't buy into the assumption that advanced science must = advanced ethics.

I think they capture and diesct us like we capture and vivisect chimps.

Remember: if we limit ourselves to stereotypes, it is not the "religious" person who captures and cuts apart living chimps in science labs, it is the "non-God-involved" Scientist. Not in the pursuit of "religion" but in the pursuit of "science"

What is troubling, is: it is (again, a stereotype) the Scientist (not the "religious" anti-Darwinian person) who most credits the chimp with simian intelligence, who recognizes the chimp as being most "human" of all animals ... and yet CUTS them apart, blinds them, tortures them while alive, anyway.

The Scientist can also be a Nazi, after all. The Scientist can be as devoid of morality, as anyone can be.

And the Alien may see us not as "nearly human" but "nearly sentient" and thus fair game.

Yes, the Aztecs had both advanced math and scary religious sacrifice.

When the Spaniards came, they had the advanced firepower and sailing ships ... and twisted a religion of mercy into a conquest of barbarism.

We better hope the Aliens stuck around in their Eden, longer than we stayed in ours.

mrittman

01-25-2008, 04:08 AM

This post reminds me of a Larry Norman song:

He's an unidentified flying object
you will see Him in the air
He's an unidentified flying object
you will drop your hands and stare
you will be afraid to tell your neighbors
they might think that it's not true
but when they open up the morning papers
they will know they've seen Him too

He will come back like He promised
with the price already paid
He will gather up His followers
and take them all away

He's an unidentified flying object
He will sweep down from the sky
He's an unidentified flying object
some will sleep but will not die
He's an unidentified flying object
coming back to take you home
He's an unidentifed flying object
He will role away your stone

and if there's life on other planets
then i'm sure that He must know
and He's been there once already
and has died to save their souls

He's an unidentified flying object
you will see Him in the air
He's an unidentified flying object
you will drop your hands and stare
He's an unidentified flying object
coming back to take you Home
He's an unidentifed flying object
He will role away your stone

I think this topic might make an interesting book. A main character might struggle with his own faith after first contact with an alien species. Maybe among the alien religions is a religion that discusses God becoming flesh and redeeming the alien race.

C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy were interesting books. It could be possible that we are the only fallen planet in the entire universe. It might not be.

oscuridad

01-27-2008, 01:08 AM

this is an interesting discussion - I haven't read al of it but has anyone mentioned a book called 'The Sparrow' by Maria Dora Russel which explores these ideas brilliantly. The sequel is called 'Children of God' and to my shame I have never read it. 'The Sparrow is brilliant, edge of your seat SF, with an expedition to an extra-solar civilization led by Jesuits...

Seriously. Its a very good and thought provoking book.

Bartholomew

02-14-2008, 11:51 AM

I'm approaching this from a linguistic point of view.

Many, many tribal names mean "People," "Us," "human beings," and others words to this effect. And really, these are just labels that set us apart from other mammals, and add "we're sentient" to the mix.

If other sentient life evolved, it is likely that they would refer to themselves in the same way.

So, perhaps, the word "humanity" will one-day be an stricken from the bible and replaced with "sentience" -- especially if we find, through some remarkable turn of events, that our celestial friends, with their bug eyes and sixteen tentacles, were already Christian.

Now THERE'S a plot twist for you. :)

Hi,

Okay, it's not the sequel to that 50s classic 'Earth against the Flying Saucers', but, please stick with it.
This is regarding an argument in my WIP:

As the Bible says Man is God's greatest creation, would the existence of aliens prove damaging to Christianity? Obviously I'm not talking about alien mircobes or bugs, but aliens that are mentally and physically superiour to humans. Could such existence cast doubt on there being a God, or a God as we know it, by showing His 'greatest creation' is inferior to the aliens, therefore, He can't be all powerful/knowing, etc? I know this might be difficult, but I'm not looking for proof of God, or how aliens could exist without any detriment to His word, etc, but the opposite -- how to argue that such alien life would impact adversely on Christianity. (I don't know enough about the subject to know if the argument I've used is sound enough.)

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks for your time.
Cheers,
Steve

Tom Johnson

02-15-2008, 02:46 AM

As a Christian, I have no problem with the concept of other worlds and other peoples, and yes, didn't Jesus even say, "My Kingdom is not of this earth"? His Kingdom is the Heavens, and all that are within.

Sean D. Schaffer

02-15-2008, 05:33 AM

Snipped...

So, perhaps, the word "humanity" will one-day be an stricken from the bible and replaced with "sentience" -- especially if we find, through some remarkable turn of events, that our celestial friends, with their bug eyes and sixteen tentacles, were already Christian.

Now THERE'S a plot twist for you. :)

:)

A cool plot twist to be sure, but some die-hard Bible scholars might have a problem with that, because according to Scripture, only human beings need a Savior.

Not that I'm complaining about your plot twist; I think it'd make a great premise. But there'd be people out there who might not enjoy the idea and end up protesting outside theaters and stuff like that ... which could actually work in the filmmakers' favor, if they count on the free publicity such protests could give them.

But in all seriousness, the Bible does call "All men" to repent, meaning all human beings. Nowhere in Scripture do we find people preaching, for example, to dogs or cats or horses, etc. That's because animals never sinned, and therefore, don't need a Savior. If there were aliens living on other worlds, it would make sense that these other worlds' inhabitants would not need a Savior either.

I heard a preacher, years ago, say that if there were intelligences throughout our universe aside from ourselves, God would likely be hiding them from us so that they would not be contaminated by our sins. Of course, that was only one preacher's view, but still I think much the same way now. I have no trouble with aliens from outer space, or with them being creatures other than angels or demons. But I believe if there are other beings out there that we don't know about, God, in all His wisdom and mercy, could be keeping us from finding their worlds so as to keep us from poisoning them.

This is not so much an argument as it is a little something to chew on. The debate rages on, I'm sure, but in the end, what matters to Christianity is not the existence of aliens or the lack thereof. What matters to Christians are the basic elements of the Faith. The Bible's seeming lack of any kind of evidence either way concerning aliens, tells me the subject is a possibility, not a doctrinal issue ... thankfully. :)

--Sean