Why do some Christians say life cannot exist elsewhere?

Post Reply New Topic

But c'mon now, you gotta admit, that was pretty dang impressive for back then!

Why do they care about aliens? Because the bible says that god created everything for man on earth.

The 15th century isn't a completely primitive time, and honestly, we are dealing with a situation with a law of large numbers here. So.... really, I don't see much to be concerned one way or another about.

How do you mean a law of large numbers?

But why isn't, according to your opinion, 16th century Christianity not as much Christianity as the early Church? By the way, your argument about the flat earth isn't correct either. The most you can say is that opinions were divided. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth.

How exactly do multiple creations of sentient life devalue the "specialness" of humans on Earth? When parents have several children, does that make each child less special? Are only children somehow in a position of privilege, being more "special" than the children of larger families?

[quote="Awesomelyglorious"][quote="dddhgg"]
The concept of life on other planets isn't entirely alien to Christianity though. Giordano Bruno, an Italian priest and philosopher, argued an infinitude of inhabited worlds in the 16th century (and was burned for it, among other reasons).

you're contradicting yourself.

This annectdote proves that the idea of life beyond Earth IS alien to the church!
Not that it ISNT!
You said yourself that the church labeled him a heretic and burned him at the stake!

Sure, and Protestantism is also alien to Christianity just because the Church burned the first Protestants as heretics... The mistake you make is to identify Christianity with the Roman Catholic Church, or any denomination for that matter. Bruno's idea didn't just appear out of nowhere, and there didn't really exist a secular philosophical tradition in his day.

By the way, Bruno was just one example. The idea of the plurality of (inhabited) worlds became quite popular in the 17th Century, with people like Huygens and Fontenelle writing treatises on the subject. It also appears in the writings of the devoutly religious Isaac Newton. This means, to my mind, that the idea isn't alien to Christian thought, like I said before.

Last edited by dddhgg on 22 Jan 2010, 2:40 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Over time there are going to be thousands upon thousands of people, and a significant number are going to promote some sort of idea. The idea that *one* person would promote one idea that bears some resemblance to a modern idea doesn't really surprise me for that reason.

Maybe I don't mean "law of large numbers", but... I just mean that it starts to seem more probable that these kinds of ideas will exist over the notion that they don't.

Because Christianity is a revealed religion. The early church is closest to the revelation. Later churches are more distant, and as such lose a lot of the implicit beliefs and things like that.

dddhgg, I wasn't saying that the Bible held to a flat earth, only that a reasonably credible argument could be made on the matter, and actually some people do argue this. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/tektonics ... bible.html I am not saying that they are right, but it's not a terrible argument either.

(another here: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... verse.html )

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 22 Jan 2010, 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, it makes every child less special:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sur ... only-child

"To begin, the only child is first and last child in one and so is the only chance at parenting the parents get. Thus they take this charge very seriously."

"Second, the only child gets the entire social, emotional, and material resources those parents have to provide. He or she is their sole beneficiary."


In any case, the real issue at hand is that people are supposedly made in the image of God. God, like most beings, would seem to only have one image. This means that either God is creating a lot of human-like creatures, or he is creating sentient life that is not in his image for no real reason. Not only that, but there are problems with multiple intelligent life forms and the doctrine of the atonement. Essentially, one has to either reject traditional Christianity, or believe that God died multiple times and has spent a good portion of time in hell because of these atoning actions.

I wasn't saying that you were saying that. Instead, you stated: "As it stands, one can credibly argue that early Christians and Jews thought the world was flat." This is nonsense, from a historical point of view. Most educated early Christians were thorougly grounded in the culture of Antiquity and at least some would have been familiar with the arguments of people like Eratosthenes, who not only demonstrated the spherical shape of the earth but also accurately estimated its diameter. Also, almost all Greek and Roman philosophers of the first centuries A.D. would have agreed with Eratosthenes. And since the Bible doesn't really state the contrary, there's little reason to believe that more than a small minority of early Christians actually argued that the Earth is flat.

As for your argument that early Christianity was in some way "closer" to the doctrines of Christ than modern denominations, I advice you to read up on the history of the early Church. Early Christianity was a hotbed of theological confusion and contention, with Arians, Pelagians, Socinians, Christian Gnostics, etc. fighting over every minute bit of theological doctrine which most of now take for granted (trinity of God, the personhood of Christ, and so on). Only in the 4th Century A.D. did something arise like a Church unified in doctrine and religious practice, after which the competing points of view were gradually phased out or repressed.

Ok, but the issue is that Protestantism was an attempt to reinstate the historical church through re-examination of historical documents, AKA the scriptures.

The issue is that there is no indication that Bruno was drawing off of scripture, as he could be drawing off of some scientific finding of the time, or some philosophical idea, as both can exist without having a relationship to the traditional Christian orthodoxy.

I never claimed that Bruno got his idea directly from Scripture. I said: the idea isn't alien to Christianity, by which I mean, firstly, that it doesn't explicitly contradict the basic tenets of Christianity (as far as I know), and, secondly, that it appears numerous times in Christian philosophers - Bruno, Huygens, Newton...

Well, the issue is that there are passages indicate the idea that a person at a great enough height could see everything. The issue is that this is complete nonsense if one doesn't hold to a flat earth.

The other link I posted later actually does a better job.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... verse.html

It provides this picture given by a scholar about the Hebrew view of the world.


The notion that the Hebrew view of the world is flat means that if the Christians view the Hebrew revelations as valid and acceptable, that rationally there is no reason this wouldn't apply to views on the nature of the Earth. After all, in Matthew 4:8 it says "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." the issue is that this tends to suggest that Matthew was a flat-earther, as a very high mountain shouldn't be able to show all of the kingdoms of the world, and taking Jesus on a tall mountain just for no reason, is pointless.


I know that early Christianity was a "hotbed" of theological confusion and contention. The issue is that EVERY denomination today that is not considered in some form or fashion heretical is concerned with the early church. The Protestants find it through the Scriptures, and the Orthodox and Catholics find it through scriptures and the Church Fathers. And the reasoning is that there is a greater closeness of the early church to the original revelation. You haven't really refuted that by saying that there were conflicts, and unless you are going to promote an ad hoc progressive revelation where Christianity could potentially become *anything*, or deny the existence of a real Christianity, we have to regard Christianity as a revealed religion and look towards the time of the revelation(s) to understand the meaning. This means, the early Church would have to be a matter of great study, either their scriptures (as the Protestants seek) or their great teachers. (as Catholics and Orthodox people seek)

I don't see a real reason to take a Christianity that is whatever you want it to be seriously. The religion is based upon historical facts and writings.

Umm.... explicit contradiction isn't required for something to be "alien". In order to be "alien" it just must lack things suggesting it. Now, the issue is that nothing even comes close to suggesting the matter.

Yes, 15 CENTURIES LATER! Think about how many people DIED and how many NEW ideas came up during those 15 years? A large number. So.... pointing to these thinkers is kind of irrelevant, as unless they are moving from Scripture, it could be derived from some other source, like the science or the philosophy of a given point in time. As Christianity didn't kill philosophy or science, and it didn't entirely consume them either,(although it sought to) so saying that these Christians believed X doesn't say much. I could use that same principle to prove that medicine is bad(Christian Science), that the darkness of one's skin is a result of one's ancestors and that there was an Israelite tribe that moved to America(Mormons), that Ethiopia is heaven and marijuana is good(Rastafarianism), etc.... but each of those positions isn't really derived from Christianity and likely against it despite the fact that all of these views are MORE theologically oriented than the 3 philosophers who come to the conclusion you are trying to bring up.