Why do some Christians say life cannot exist elsewhere?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

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.

So, you insist that the passage has to mean in His physical image? Then which men did He make in His image? Caucasians? Asians? Blacks? Bald men, hairy men, men who can't grow beards? Tutsi giants, or Himalayan shorties? Pacific Islanders? Australian aborigines, perhaps?

Sorry, but there's too much variety in even the appearance of humans for that argument to hold water. Try again.

K, hear me out quick. I've met some that say there's no way to tell (and that's where I stand, although I can't imagine why there wouldn't be) and then some say it's an affront to God to think there is.

What is there reasoning behind this? I've read parts of the Bible that support the existence of life elsewhere.

obviously because man is the SpEcIaL creation, why we can wipe are arses and build things. i'd like to see a horse do that! omg

you must have seen alot of horse butthole in you're lifetime. i cant say that i have, so i'll take your advice on it. and of course there not into politics, there far to smart for it. although im shure they have some social system, i rarely see a lone horse do it all by himself. but horses rule and i love there ears

ok well im happy you let that off of your chest. you must feel better because i know i do, now tell me. whats really bothering you?
i hope im not this grumpy when im elderly

You still haven't convinced me that this was the view held by the majority of early Christians. As for the verse in Mathhew, it can be argued that he really meant "all the kingdoms of the inhabited or civilized world". For in the uninhabited part of the world there wouldn't be any need for kings, would there? The issue whether there was any life on the part of the world that couldn't theoretically be seen from a mountain top (i.e., the entire southern hemisphere) was a different issue from that of the earth's shape. In fact, there is evidence that most believers in a spherical earth at the same time were skeptical as to whether "antipodes" (beings living on the opposite side of the sphere) could exist, leaving at least half of the earth uninhabited. St Augustine, among others, seems to have held this view.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt whether there really existed, at any point in history, something like an "early Church", i.e., something distinct from Jesus and his immediate followers and pupils, and something signifying more than the sum of an infinitely fragmented set of opinions, doctrines, and practices. I'm even more skeptical as to the ability of later denominations to uncover the properties of this hypothetical "early Church", lacking as they are in both historical and cultural context (we'll never be 1st Century Jews or Greeks or Romans) and in truly reliable, non-contradictory first-hand accounts of Jesus and his actions.

Briefly, I find the notion of an "early Church" as representing the "true" teachings of Christ both theologically and historically invalid.

oh well my grace, thank you so much! *quirtzes* hopefully when i did that my wig didnt fall at your feet

this is absolute garbage. but im just returning the favor, you come across as a grumpy, argumentative knowit-all. thanks for your help, but i dont need it because i can figure things out on my own