ac3p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison R. Carter) (05/03/91)
I find it interesting that the subject of extraterrestrial life has been addressed on this bboard. However, the original posting of nearly two weeks ago has had only one or two responses. I find it disappointing that the posters on this board have been so nearsighted as to converse in local, terrestrial human religious matters rather than address this rather uncomfortable issue. My view is this, and is completely out of league with any beliefs in the original creation: We evolved independently as a planet within the life zone of our sun, and if it happened to us, it can happen many times over in a universe of a billion galaxies and over a thousand trillion stars. So how can a religion created by a straggling group of shepherds, just past the step of evolving from animal to sentient, possibly sum up the whole of creation? We see what happens around us, and all the similarities of being human. All human religions have something in common because we are all human. We have two eyes, two arms, two legs, a sex drive, and the sky is blue, rain is wet, grass is green, there's a sun and a moon. Therefore, human religion is strictly human. Could it possibly be that all the applications of Christianity will apply to other, possibly completely different, intelligences? If they reproduce asexually, or if they are docile by nature, or if they are pure intelligence with only marignal material existence, how can it be that they could be governed by the same jealous god that made Adam and Eve as his first creation, or that the same god needs to send the same son to the whole of the universe in different forms to tell any of them what to do? We are the humans. We are animal, violent, greedy creatures just out of our embryonic evolutionary stage. To assume that the rest of the universe worships the same god of humanity is assuming a lot. And why, if Christianity is the only correct religion, would such a god reveal itself to one filthy human desert tribe whilst the rest of civilization supposedly falls to spiritual ruin by creating their own "false, untrue" religions e.g. hinduism, Egyptian religion, Assyrian religion, and the scores of separate tribal beliefs that evolved in North America and Africa? I have a feeling that god is not male or female, nor is it partial to any race of evolved beings, it is immaterial, and incapable of omnipotence by itself or sentience. It cannot father children or issue commands. I seem to see that god, in itself, or spirit, is simply the high power that we are just learning to tap into and use as sentients just newly capable of reaching into the realm of the emotional and spiritual plane. Anyone tell me if I'm wrong here... A. Carter The Darwin's advocate
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/05/91)
In article <May.3.03.15.12.1991.24275@athos.rutgers.edu> ac3p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison R. Carter) writes: >I find it interesting that the subject of extraterrestrial life has been >addressed on this bboard. However, the original posting of nearly two >weeks ago has had only one or two responses. I find it disappointing >that the posters on this board have been so nearsighted as to converse >in local, terrestrial human religious matters rather than address this >rather uncomfortable issue. I don't find it to be an uncomfortable issue at all. I believe in creation by a sentient being. Creation (that is to say the Cosmos) is vast, and practically infinite. Given what seems to be a hard fixed speed limit, 'c', I don't see how humanity can possibly explore all of creation. Since I don't believe the creator created other entire galaxies just to give us pretty lights, I really don't see why God would not have created life on other planets as well. (And I see nothing in the Bible to contradict this.) I don't believe that we are created in the physical image of God. So I don't believe that all life created by God must be humanoid. I don't believe that we will be joining "The Federation" any time soon. As for the apparant nearsightedness of the group, the existance or non-existance of extra-terrestrial life is not a matter that is going to be influencing our lives dramatically in the foreseeable future. (Unless of course we are already being visited by ET's and they are affecting our lives currently. If the ET's *are* here, [in UFO's] so far they have chosen to keep themseleves hidden, and I would expect them to continue to do so.) If ET's do show up here. (It'll be a long time before *we* show up anywhere) it's not gonna effect my faith. (My life probably, my faith no. ;-) ) >Could it possibly be that all the applications of Christianity will >apply to other, possibly completely different, intelligences? If they >reproduce asexually, or if they are docile by nature, or if they are >pure intelligence with only marignal material existence, how can it be >that they could be governed by the same jealous god that made Adam and >Eve as his first creation, or that the same god needs to send the same >son to the whole of the universe in different forms to tell any of them >what to do? We are the humans. We are animal, violent, greedy >creatures just out of our embryonic evolutionary stage. To assume that >the rest of the universe worships the same god of humanity is assuming a >lot. And to assume otherwise is also assuming a lot. A number of SciFi authors have addressed these questions. My views don't vary widely. As for Christianity, Jesus spent a lot of time correcting mis-understandings of the law. On another planet without a sinful nature, there might have been no need for a Christ. (They might never have fallen. There might never have been a need for a redemption.) The lack of a Christ does not preclude the lack of a religion compatible with our own. >Anyone tell me if I'm wrong here... I can't tell you that you're wrong about what you feel. The danger comes in suggesting that what you *feel* must be truth. (It's a trap we all tend to fall into.) "*I* know the truth. All other beliefs are wrong. Any other belief held in all of history that disagrees with my beliefs was wrong. Any belief held in the future which differs from my present beliefs will also be wrong. (Unless I change my mind.)" I'm willing to bet that your beliefs have changed a bit in the last few years. I'm also willing to bet they'll change again. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
shallenb@news.colorado.edu (Nualle) (05/05/91)
ac3p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison R. Carter) writes: >I find it disappointing >that the posters on this board have been so nearsighted as to converse >in local, terrestrial human religious matters rather than address this >rather uncomfortable issue. Actually, fun as the subject is, we haven't got enough information to make it profitable to discuss extraterrestrial theology (whether that means alien life on other planets or demons (another subject current on this board.)) IMHO, it would be presumtuous of us to try. We haven't got ourselves figured out; how are we to approach alien psyches and souls? >My view is this, and is completely out of league with any beliefs in the >original creation: We evolved independently as a planet within the life >zone of our sun, and if it happened to us, it can happen many times over >in a universe of a billion galaxies and over a thousand trillion stars. That is your view and you have a perfect right to it. Know, though, that your view is based in scientific theory, not in any proven facts. For myself -- I withhold judgment. I am a musician, not a scientist, so my view in this matter is unlikely to affect much of anybody. On the other hand, I am content to claim ignorance rather than hold a belief I will likely have to amend later. >So how can a religion created by a straggling group of shepherds, just >past the step of evolving from animal to sentient, possibly sum up the >whole of creation? Who said they created it? THEY certainly didn't say they created it! But when you think about it, what interest would a bunch of shepherds have in the whole of creation? Why would they bother specifying that their god is all the huge things they claim. Their surrounding religions didn't claim such things. Nomadic peoples tended to have rather narrow-scoped, tribal gods. The very fact of the Habiru god's oddness in the culture makes it worth a second look -- at least to an anthropologist. >All human religions have something in common because we are all human. >We have two eyes, two arms, two legs, a sex drive, and the sky is blue, >rain is wet, grass is green, there's a sun and a moon. Therefore, human >religion is strictly human. Whoa, there!! You've made a quantum leap in assumptions. I'll give you that all human religions have something in common, by the fact that all religious folk (that we have dealt with) are humans. But the whole point of just about any religion is to address those things in life which are not strictly human. Why even bother with religion if being what comes naturally were enough? (And ask any conscientious religious person -- it *is* a bother.) >Could it possibly be that all the applications of Christianity will >apply to other, possibly completely different, intelligences? If they >reproduce asexually, or if they are docile by nature, or if they are >pure intelligence with only marignal material existence, how can it be >that they could be governed by the same jealous god that made Adam and >Eve as his first creation, or that the same god needs to send the same >son to the whole of the universe in different forms to tell any of them >what to do? We are the humans. We are animal, violent, greedy >creatures just out of our embryonic evolutionary stage. To assume that >the rest of the universe worships the same god of humanity is assuming a >lot. You've brought up a number of things here, but I don't think they can be fairly separated into sections, so I'll try responding backwards. 1) Yahweh is the god of humanity to humans. If tribbles existed and were sentient and spiritual, Yahweh would be the god of tribbles to tribbles. 2) How Yahweh would manifest to tribbles is Their own affair. If it became necessary, Yeshua would become a tribble. Or, perhaps, Yeshua's actions as a human would be sufficient for tribble need as well. >And why, if Christianity is the only correct religion, would such a god >reveal itself to one filthy human desert tribe whilst the rest of >civilization supposedly falls to spiritual ruin by creating their own >"false, untrue" religions e.g. hinduism, Egyptian religion, Assyrian >religion, and the scores of separate tribal beliefs that evolved in >North America and Africa? Well, you managed to hear about God. I assume you are not a member of said filthy human desert tribe. Would giving revelation instead to the ancient Greeks have satisfied you better? (Oh wait -- Paul said God did reveal Themselves to the ancient Greeks, at least partially) As for how God will deal with believers in other faiths, my only answer is that They will deal with them the same way They deal with christians: individually, one-by-one. My God is a person of unspeakably passionate love toward every creature -- and especially every human. For a little more on that, see my post about Hell. >I have a feeling that god is not male or female, nor is it partial to >any race of evolved beings, it is immaterial, and incapable of >omnipotence by itself or sentience. It cannot father children or issue >commands. I seem to see that god, in itself, or spirit, is simply the >high power that we are just learning to tap into and use as sentients >just newly capable of reaching into the realm of the emotional and >spiritual plane. I have faith that God is neither male nor female, nor are They partial to any race of beings to the detriment or negligence of other races. They are Themselves immaterial, because They transcend the limitations that material form would impose. They cannot father children, but They can create living creatures and the subsequent relationship can rightfully be compared to that between father and child. I have faith that God is not me, and is not to be found inside my psyche, except in poor reflection. I believe that if we humans are evolving (and I find the idea entirely possible), that we aren't finished. We certainly haven't reached the limit of our potential. On the other hand, if we are not evolving (and I find that idea equally possible), then we don't need to and God can deal with us just fine as we are. >The Darwin's advocate No-one's advocate but my own -Nualle
@vm.cc.purdue.edu:ROSSJB@PURCCVM (John Ross) (05/11/91)
Many people have wodnered if life exists on other planets. Some of these postulate that perhaps they did not rebel against God as those of us bound do Earth did. Perhaps not. Yet, I wonder.... Do you think man's sin affected them? Death and decay did not enter the world until Adam and Eve's pride got the better of them... look around the universe, you can see for yourself that things are spiralling DOWNWARDS (as in entropy, 2nd law of thermodynamics...) Since death and decay (decay, at least), exists on a universe-wide scale, it would seem that the original sin affects other planets, as well. Unless, of course, each solar system had its own original sinners. If each solar system had its own original sinners, they obviously need Christ. If they did not have their own original sinners, it is possible that since they are also being affected by *our* sin(s), they are in need of redemption. Why? Because of the death and decay surrounding them... it is quite possible that these aliens sin by drinking milk, or whatever... so perhaps they need to learn of Christ... and perhaps we need to start broadcasting the gospel, rather than "Hello.... Hello... Hello...". Finally, if they did commit their own original sin, why does God have to sacrifice His son more than once? And *I* thought that Christ's sacrifice was once-and-for-all. Guess I was mistaken. John
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/17/91)
[John Ross suggested that extraterrestrials might be in need of redemption from Christ, and thus that maybe we should be trying to spread the Gospel to them. --clh] I believe that Christ only died for human beings. After all, the first Adam brought sin to mankind. the second Adam died for that sin. Link Hudson
kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (05/19/91)
In article <May.3.03.15.12.1991.24275@athos.rutgers.edu> ac3p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison R. Carter) writes: >I find it disappointing that the posters on this board have been so >nearsighted as to converse in local, terrestrial human religious matters >rather than address this rather uncomfortable issue. > >My view is this, and is completely out of league with any beliefs in the >original creation: We evolved independently as a planet within the life >zone of our sun, and if it happened to us, it can happen many times over >in a universe of a billion galaxies and over a thousand trillion stars. > >So how can a religion created by a straggling group of shepherds, just >past the step of evolving from animal to sentient, possibly sum up the >whole of creation? > I wouldn't necessarily put so much FAITH in the assumption that life exists elsewhere. While there may be plenty of worlds out there, we are also plenty complex. As a Catholic I would disagree with the assertion that the revealed word has to cover EVERYTHING there is to know about the universe. As a Catholic, I am only required to believe that all that is necessary for our salvation has been revealed in the period ending with the death of the last apostle. The apostles knew nothing of "biochemistry", or "quantum physics", etc. Neither did any of the prophets or other scriptural writers before them. I don't have any problem with that. That the Bible is not a "biochemistry textbook" simply indicates that ... for all the "neat things" a knowledge of biochemistry could expose us to ... it's ultimately and FUNDAMENTALLY peripheral. The Christian believes that from the time of Christ and his apostles onward, it has become possible for people to be saved. And this ability to be saved has nothing to do with being an "Olympic pole vaulter" or a "current member of the physics faculty at Berkeley" but rather with the simple choice of accepting Jesus as Lord: Lord, by your Cross and Resurection You have set us free. You are the Saviour of the world. For us Catholics, this is part of our Mass. Protestants should be able to identify it as the heart of Romans 10:9. As for the assertion that Christianity was "invented by shepherds" If Christ did not rise from the dead, then certainly Christianity is "invented" If Christ did rise from the dead, then the base of our faith is rooted in historical fact. Did Christ rise from the dead? That is a question that can only be answered by us, separated by 2000 years from the time of the event's occurance, through faith. But then it was always that way. The Resurrection defies all human experience. It defies all human logic, all human wisdom. Yet if Jesus is Lord, the Son of God, then all becomes possible. And rejecting the Ressurection becomes an act of faith also ... that human experience, logic, and wisdom are enough to reject what has always been maintained (by the Christian faithful) to be the ultimate ACT OF GOD. dennis kriz@skat.usc.edu
harling@pictel.uucp (Dan Harling) (05/26/91)
I think that C. S. Lewis used this idea in one of his Space Trilogy
books (I did not read the book; I just read ABOUT the book). I just
thought I would interject some ideas, most of which are probably
attributable to Lewis:
As a result of Adam's rebellion in the Garden of Eden, God cursed the
serpent (Satan), Adam and Eve, and the Ground. God's curse on the
ground sounds arbitrary at first (the ground didn't do anything!), but
I think that the first chapters of Genesis may help explain this. Adam
was placed in charge of the Garden (Creation), to take care of it.
He was God's representative to Creation (as a "vassal king?").
Perhaps the curse on the Ground indicates that Creation shared in
Adam's Fall, for this reason.
The question now is, how much of (or what part of) Creation fell with
Adam? Were its effects felt only on the Earth, or did they touch the
entire Universe, or somewhere in between? If the entire Universe were
affected, then I suppose you could say that we pretty much screwed it
up for everyone, if there were any other races out there. What if,
however, there were a race unaffected by Adam's Fall?
If this other race never fell, as Adam did, then they would be sinless
and not need atonement, since they would still be in the state in which
they were originally created. However, suppose that this other race
had its own version of Adam's fall. What form would their salvation
take?
God sent his eternal Son to us as a man, so that he could be our
representative, and bear the guilt of our sins. While I think that
Jesus' death was sufficient for all men (whom he represented), I do not
think that Jesus' death would apply to members of this alien race,
since Jesus was our representative at Calvary, not theirs. This would
not, however, preclude His doing the same sort of thing as a member of
this other race, in their own world, for them.
The sacrifice of God's Son, in a spiritual sense, occurs only once; His
expression of love for his creation is eternal. However, the event in
history in which the Son dies as a representative for a race would (in
the above system) occur once for each race being saved.
There is a reason that the Bible does not tell us about how salvation
works with alien races, or angels, or rocks, etc.: because it doesn't
concern us. I can sit here and speculate all day (well, at least a
couple of hours!) on all of these matters, but I will never know any of
it for sure. I do not claim that any of my speculations above are
true; I only assert that they are interesting.
Now, on to more important things (like going home and having dinner)...
God Bless,
______________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling PictureTel, Inc.
Rockport, MA Peabody, MA
Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of
PictureTel, Inc.; they are MINE, ALL MINE! (So there.)
---- === ====