Why do some Christians say life cannot exist elsewhere?
26 Jan 2010, 2:19 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
In any case, "gain knowledge" isn't a single process, or even a simple basic thing. I mean, the way in which a computer gains knowledge and the way I gain knowledge, and the way in which let's say that society gains knowledge, and even the way in which a CD gains knowledge are all different things with different meanings to them. Only one of these ways reflects our psychological processes, and that is obviously the one that is most directly how we gain knowledge. The other ways are still gains in knowledge, arguably, for the new possessor, but computers are not said to be made in God's image. Additionally, I have doubts that Genesis 1 was referring to science, the reason I say that is because science has never been the priority of Christianity over its spirituality, and additionally the early Jews are unlikely to have had a lot in terms of technology or anything like that.
Although computers generally just do what we tell them, they're programmed. They can't gain insight into their surroundings because they don't know anything outside themselves. In terms of AI, no computer has yet passed the Turing test either. But besides that, that was just a suggestion. Let's say that's not what was being referred to.
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
It could refer to the soul, but then again, who could know what has a soul and what doesn't? Are we talking about the possibility of souled aliens, or soulless aliens? Under this kind of idea both are possible, but really.... well.... neither have much purpose in their creation given the scriptures known and even some good reasons to believe that such things wouldn't exist. Why would God create soulless aliens that we should enslave and eat to our will despite their cries for help? Why should God create soulless aliens that go to war with us? Why should God create souled aliens that we end up terribly misunderstanding and killing hordes of? Why should God create souled aliens that are technically saved, but whose salvation we can never be certain of given that X'rieagei is not the name we give to Jesus? The very idea causes so many problems that labeling the notion as blasphemy seems sensible.
Are you talking about Bruno Giordano in the 16th century? I don't see his comments as even evidence, much less addressing my problems. As well, some of the problems I've brought up are ones that dddhhg brought up at first as well, as multiple atoning sacrifices are needed if alien lifeforms existed.
Are you talking about Bruno Giordano in the 16th century? I don't see his comments as even evidence, much less addressing my problems. As well, some of the problems I've brought up are ones that dddhhg brought up at first as well, as multiple atoning sacrifices are needed if alien lifeforms existed.
Actually, I was not referring to Bruno. I was referring to Father Gabriel Funes, who is the current Vatican astronomer. He has also reconciled evolution with the bible. In any case, the idea of the plurality of worlds is much older than Bruno. The ancient Greek writer Thales considered the possibility of extraterrestrial life. It also seems to have been mentioned by some Jewish sources as well. Although the Jewish sources don't seem to consider that the extraterrestrials have free will. The main thing that stood against the idea in Christian thought is that they adopted the geocentric model of the universe that was championed by Ptolemy and Aristotle. This would of suggested of course that the Earth was unique. What Bruno did was really to take the Copernican (heliocentric) model one step further and was the suggest that there were planets around other suns. At the time, this scheme would of made the idea of extraterrestrial life seem much more plausible. The significance of Bruno then, was more that he made scientific contribution to the idea. I'll repeat that I wasn't initially talking about Bruno. What I was saying, was that Father Funes has tried to resolve some of the theological problems you have mentioned, including the ones stated in the above questions. The Vatican no longer believes intelligent aliens would be a problem. And yes, was talking about souled aliens. Here are some sources to that effect:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/11/10/vatican-holds-conference-on-extraterrestrial-life/
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/05/14/vatican-astronomer-says-its-ok-to-believe-in-et/
26 Jan 2010, 3:00 pm
Jono wrote:
Although computers generally just do what we tell them, they're programmed. They can't gain insight into their surroundings because they don't know anything outside themselves. In terms of AI, no computer has yet passed the Turing test either. But besides that, that was just a suggestion. Let's say that's not what was being referred to.
Well, I don't see a fundamental difference between natural intelligences and artificial intelligences, and I don't see a reason for an artificial intelligence to be impossible.
Quote:
Actually, I was not referring to Bruno. I was referring to Father Gabriel Funes, who is the current Vatican astronomer. He has also reconciled evolution with the bible. In any case, the idea of the plurality of worlds is much older than Bruno. The ancient Greek writer Thales considered the possibility of extraterrestrial life. It also seems to have been mentioned by some Jewish sources as well. Although the Jewish sources don't seem to consider that the extraterrestrials have free will. The main thing that stood against the idea in Christian thought is that they adopted the geocentric model of the universe that was championed by Ptolemy and Aristotle. This would of suggested of course that the Earth was unique. What Bruno did was really to take the Copernican (heliocentric) model one step further and was the suggest that there were planets around other suns. At the time, this scheme would of made the idea of extraterrestrial life seem much more plausible. The significance of Bruno then, was more that he made scientific contribution to the idea. I'll repeat that I wasn't initially talking about Bruno. What I was saying, was that Father Funes has tried to resolve some of the theological problems you have mentioned, including the ones stated in the above questions. The Vatican no longer believes intelligent aliens would be a problem. And yes, was talking about souled aliens. Here are some sources to that effect:
I haven't read that, but I don't find the matter plausible. I think the entire matter deadlocks on the incarnation issue. I think that multiple incarnations would be necessary under this model, but Funes says that this is impossible. Because of that alone, I think the model breaks down.
I also don't think that evolution and the Bible are really reconcilable. The idea of Adam and original sin requires one father of the human race, but the idea of evolution means that only one progenitor of humanity is absurd. I don't see any good reconciliation between the two views.
26 Jan 2010, 3:07 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
This is an area where I theologically disagree with Creation Ministries International, CMI, and may be incorrect. Their view is that,
Bates, G. (2007). Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?. Creation ministries international. Retrieved (2010, January 26) from http://creation.com/did-god-create-life ... er-planets
What is my view? That there could be life that God also created elsewhere in the universe. Christ can only die once though, so they may fall under the same conditions as the angels would, when the final judgment proceeds. (I know nobody likes judgment and this is probably where I'll get the most flak and mockery, but this question is inherently theological and directly related to Christian theology, so I am answering in theological terms.) I see two main categories of worlds, if they are to contain life, these being that they are either innocent or fallen. Since we are of a fallen world ourselves, and I would venture to say that God would protect the innocent worlds from contact with us, then, in this case, it would be most likely that if we're to make contact with other life capable of language to the same extent as us, that it would also be of a fallen world.
C.S. Lewis wrote a trilogy on this subject, though only Out Of The Silent Planet and Perelandra have their setting on other planets.
Quote:
1. The Bible indicates that the whole creation groans and travails under the weight of sin (Romans 8:18–22). The effect of the Curse following Adam’s Fall was universal.2 Otherwise what would be the point of God destroying this whole creation to make way for a new heavens and Earth—2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1 ff? Therefore, any ETs living elsewhere would have been (unjustly) affected by the Adamic Curse through no fault of their own—they would not have inherited Adam’s sin nature.
2. When Christ (God) appeared in the flesh, He came to Earth not only to redeem mankind but eventually the whole creation back to Himself (Romans 8:21, Colossians 1:20). However, Christ’s atoning death at Calvary cannot save these hypothetical ETs, because one needs to be a physical descendant of Adam for Christ to be our ‘kinsman-redeemer’ (Isaiah 59:20). Jesus was called ‘the last Adam’ because there was a real first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22,45)—not a first Vulcan, Klin gon etc. This is so a sinless human Substitute takes on the punishment all humans deserve for sin (Isaiah 53:6,10; Matthew 20:28; 1 John 2:2, 4:10), with no need to atone for any (non-existent) sin of his own (Hebrews 7:27).
3. Since this would mean that any ETs would be lost for eternity when this present creation is destroyed in a fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10, 12), some have wondered whether Christ’s sacrifice might be repeated elsewhere for other beings. However, Christ died once for all (Romans 6:10, 1 Peter 3:18) on the earth. He is not going to be crucified and resurrected again on other planets (Hebrews 9:26). This is confirmed by the fact that the redeemed (earthly) church is known as Christ’s bride (Ephesians 5:22–33; Revelation 19:7–9) in a marriage that will last for eternity.3 Christ is not going to be a polygamist with many other brides from other planets.
4. The Bible makes no provision for God to redeem any other species, any more than to redeem fallen angels (Hebrews 2:16).
2. When Christ (God) appeared in the flesh, He came to Earth not only to redeem mankind but eventually the whole creation back to Himself (Romans 8:21, Colossians 1:20). However, Christ’s atoning death at Calvary cannot save these hypothetical ETs, because one needs to be a physical descendant of Adam for Christ to be our ‘kinsman-redeemer’ (Isaiah 59:20). Jesus was called ‘the last Adam’ because there was a real first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:22,45)—not a first Vulcan, Klin gon etc. This is so a sinless human Substitute takes on the punishment all humans deserve for sin (Isaiah 53:6,10; Matthew 20:28; 1 John 2:2, 4:10), with no need to atone for any (non-existent) sin of his own (Hebrews 7:27).
3. Since this would mean that any ETs would be lost for eternity when this present creation is destroyed in a fervent heat (2 Peter 3:10, 12), some have wondered whether Christ’s sacrifice might be repeated elsewhere for other beings. However, Christ died once for all (Romans 6:10, 1 Peter 3:18) on the earth. He is not going to be crucified and resurrected again on other planets (Hebrews 9:26). This is confirmed by the fact that the redeemed (earthly) church is known as Christ’s bride (Ephesians 5:22–33; Revelation 19:7–9) in a marriage that will last for eternity.3 Christ is not going to be a polygamist with many other brides from other planets.
4. The Bible makes no provision for God to redeem any other species, any more than to redeem fallen angels (Hebrews 2:16).
Bates, G. (2007). Did God create life on other planets? Otherwise why is the universe so big?. Creation ministries international. Retrieved (2010, January 26) from http://creation.com/did-god-create-life ... er-planets
What is my view? That there could be life that God also created elsewhere in the universe. Christ can only die once though, so they may fall under the same conditions as the angels would, when the final judgment proceeds. (I know nobody likes judgment and this is probably where I'll get the most flak and mockery, but this question is inherently theological and directly related to Christian theology, so I am answering in theological terms.) I see two main categories of worlds, if they are to contain life, these being that they are either innocent or fallen. Since we are of a fallen world ourselves, and I would venture to say that God would protect the innocent worlds from contact with us, then, in this case, it would be most likely that if we're to make contact with other life capable of language to the same extent as us, that it would also be of a fallen world.
C.S. Lewis wrote a trilogy on this subject, though only Out Of The Silent Planet and Perelandra have their setting on other planets.
I am going to side with CMI on the matter and say that I find your theology problematic. Why would God create entire races of people who would be damned just for being born? It seems pointless, and at the same time, I don't see the reason why God would generate entire races of saved beings, most of whom would have to be radically different than we are. I mean, if aliens are in some way created separately from man, then the differences will likely be immense, probably even to the point where peaceful dialog is incredibly difficult given how difficult this is between humans. As such, I don't see the point, and I don't see how God can be labeled moral for the races of the damned or how it could work with the different species of the elect.
dddhgg
Veteran
Joined: 6 Dec 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,108
Location: The broom closet on the 13th floor
26 Jan 2010, 3:47 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
I am going to side with CMI on the matter and say that I find your theology problematic. Why would God create entire races of people who would be damned just for being born? It seems pointless, and at the same time, I don't see the reason why God would generate entire races of saved beings, most of whom would have to be radically different than we are. I mean, if aliens are in some way created separately from man, then the differences will likely be immense, probably even to the point where peaceful dialog is incredibly difficult given how difficult this is between humans. As such, I don't see the point, and I don't see how God can be labeled moral for the races of the damned or how it could work with the different species of the elect.
I always have some difficulty coming to terms with this kind of argument. "Why would God [substitute some action]? It's pointless / immoral / illogical / inconsistent." To my mind, it somehow presupposes that God's motives (if He even has any, which is a different question though) resemble ours on some basic level, or are at least are vaguely comprehendible to us. I don't see why this needs to be the case. In fact, His reasons or motives for even creating the Universe and its inhabitants are, I think, in a manner utterly beyond human reason. In fact I think God is a being so utterly transcendent that He could lay aside any human reason and logic at will. I'm not saying that He does, only that he could, in my understanding of the term "omnipotence" at least. A few classical examples: Can God create a stone He cannot lift? Yes. Can he lift it? Yes. Can he create it and be able to lift it and at the same time be unable to lift it? Yes. Can he do all this while still respecting human logic? Yes. Can He will himself not to exist? Yes. Etcetera.
To put it another way: why would God create a billion other species all of which are saved through faith? Answer: because He felt like it. Period.
_________________
Dabey müssen wir nichts seyn, sondern alles werden wollen, und besonders nicht öffter stille stehen und ruhen, als die Nothdurfft eines müden Geistes und Körpers erfordert. - Goethe
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Not knowing what I am in life |
19 Oct 2024, 2:37 pm |
| Hello! Navigating Big Life Changes |
12 Oct 2024, 6:12 pm |
| Do you need people in your life? |
06 Oct 2024, 10:10 am |
| Get more apathetic about life as time goes on |
Yesterday, 2:27 am |
