As a Christian, I was surprised to discover how many of my fellow Believers resist the idea that God could redeem other intelligences. There are websites devoted to the belief that Jesus came to Earth because Earth was the only place there were people and we were the only ones who were worth saving. God could have redeemed them through one sacrifice on Earth (assuming they needed redeeming) or He could have manifested himself on their world to do whatever needed to be done.
It’s strange, but I find exclusivity reasoning somewhat sickening. By it, the Son of God came to Earth for the Jews (oops, there’s another faux pas – most of those Christians that deny God could make, love and give His life (if that was necessary) for aliens also believe that He came for the Gentiles ALONE (in complete denial of Scripture…but it fits an elitist world view), was rejected by them and tortured; tortured some more by Gentiles, then murdered by Gentile decree and Jewish permission. Even so, He forgave us ALL – Jews and Gentiles alike, rose from the dead and now sits in glory with the Father. But according to “them”, He CAN’T love anyone as much as He loved Humans. So, Humans slaughtered the Only Son of God – and that’s something we should be proud of, that we should feel exclusive about? Does that mean that in all the Universe, we’re as bad as it gets? That’s something we claim is OUR PRIVILEDGE AND OUR PRIVILEDGE alone, right?
That makes me feel ill.
By their human logic, God is a Humans-Only God. In all of Creation, we’re it. Nothing else anywhere engages the Divine Creator of the Universe the way Humans do? God didn’t make anyone else, anywhere – in an infinite Creation? I find that extremely hard to believe as well as unsupported by Scripture. God repeatedly says that we are to love the alien (I’m sure KJV-Onlies will try to argue out of that one as well, but “alien” is mentioned eight times). Jesus said that we aren’t His only flock (John 10:16). The Bible is God’s Word to us. (KJV-Onlies will tell you God’s Word is INFALLIBLE – except when it doesn’t fit their interpretation of the Universe. Their interpretation doesn’t include aliens living on other worlds.)
CS Lewis would disagree with them. He wrote PERELANDRA, in which the Venusian Eve must make her Obedience or Disobedience choice. I happen to believe that this is the ONLY real choice we have, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Venusian Eve chooses to Obey, despite temptation. Thereafter, Venusians would live in constant communion with God.
Which is what should have happened to US, but God chose to redeem Humans whom He loved, because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience , through humiliation, pain and death. (Are we to be PROUD of that?) Evangelical Christians (who have published SF on just about every other subject) still shy away from aliens from other worlds in their mainstream for this reason – they don’t believe there’s anyone else out there. And if there were fallen people out there, then God must have only DIED ONCE, HERE, ON EARTH, BECAUSE WE WERE…not better than anyone else, surely?...BUT WORSE THAN ALL THE REST.)
With CS Lewis, I happen to disagree.
November 13, 2007
JESUS DIED FOR ALIENS, TOO...BUT HOW?
Guy Stewart is a husband; a father, father-in-law, grandfather, friend, writer, and recently retired teacher, and school counselor who maintains a SF/YA/Childrens writing blog by the name of POSSIBLY IRRITATING ESSAYS
that showcases his opinion and offers his writing up for comment. He has almost 70 publications to his credit including one book (1993 CSS Publishing)! He also maintains blogs for the West Suburban Summer School and GUY'S GOTTA TALK ABOUT DIABETES, ALZHEIMER'S & BREAST CANCER!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I think sometimes we forget that God himself is "other" than us, we are made in his image, but we are not him. He is not bounded by human constrictions or constructions, doesn't that make him alien to us as well?
Also, it is interesting to contemplate how salvation would come to another planet. Would it be the exact same story? God comes down in their form to redeem them? This presupposes the same mistakes and a similar timeline. Would he have to die to do it? Are the "rules" for redemption universal or is a different methodology possible? Hmmm...
Which is what should have happened to US, but Adam and Eve’s disobedience forced God to redeem Humans through humiliation, pain and death.
Why would God BE FORCED to redeem humanity in this way? For that matter, why should humanity as a whole have its entire nature and character transformed into a fallen state by the choice of a couple of individuals?
Even in the days when I believed in christianity I never found these theological ideas that lie at the core of christianity (the Fall, original sin, the plan of salvation) very plausible or convincing.
Do you still believe in Christ, then?
Why is it so hard to believe that sin entered the life-stream of human beings through the actions of a couple people, when disease enters the whole of creation the same way? A person with one strain of flu encounters a person with another strain and a third strain is born that affects humanity. Seems like the same deal to me.
Do you still believe in Christ, then?
I no longer believe in christianity, theism or any other supernaturalist belief system.
Why is it so hard to believe that sin entered the life-stream of human beings through the actions of a couple people, when disease enters the whole of creation the same way?
To sin is to act in a way disobedient to God. What we are talking about isn't just sin but the propensity to sin---having a fallen nature.
What sensible reason would God have to make the propensity to sin an inherited trait? It seems an odd thing to do for a being that doesn't want his creations to be sinful.
He made us to have free will because He didn't want us to be puppets.
People with free will can choose to follow His guidelines or not.
Some choices are better than others. Some people follow guidelines God laid down, others don't, still others face choices that are more ambiguous.
Like all other tendencies (alcoholism for example), we can choose to drink alcohol or not and become full-blown alcoholics or remain incipient alcoholics. (Alcoholism is present in my family. I have a tendency to alchoholism. But I choose to be a teetotaler.)
He made us to have free will because He didn't want us to be puppets.
Guy, that doesn't address the issue I raised. I am NOT asking why God gave us free will and therefore made sin possible. I am NOT arguing that it would better for us to be happy deterministic puppets. I am asking why God would have decided, when the first human sinned, that all following humans would inherit a powerful impulse to sin which didn't exist in the original humans.
It simply makes no sense and invoking free will does nothing to address it.
Think of an analogous science fictional situation. Its decades in the future and we have the technology to select our childrens genetic qualities. Two prospective parents, for some bizarre reason, decide to give their child a gene which wires their childs brain to have strong pedophilic impulses (in this fictional scenario, pedophilia can have a strong genetic component---I'm not claiming this is true of the real world---I don't know that one way or the other).
Most people are, naturally, completely appalled and want this made illegal.
The parents' lawyer argues that since all humans have free will and it will be up the the person born with the gene whether or not to act on the impulse that there is nothing wrong with giving them this gene.
Of course, you would recognize such an argument as utter nonsense.
But how is your use of free will as justification for God giving us an inherited impulse to sinfulness any different?
OK -- I'm just not understanding your question/argument. What is an "inherited impulse to sinfulness"? Are you talking about Adam and Eve doing the original sin and then having "everyone pay for it over and over" by being inherently sinful?
Is your arguement that it makes no sense that Adam and Eve sinned for all Humanity (you and me included)? Is your sticking point that you and I should start out perfect and have to face our OWN obedience/disobedience "trial" so that we can make our own sins and each of us receive the penalty for our own decision ONLY?
If that is true, then what's the difference if it's "Satan and an apple" billions/thousands of years ago or "follow Jesus in the 21st century"?
Or, do you find the idea stupid that there should be sin at all and that you have no responsibility for Adam and Eve's sin -- but would be happy to take responsibility for your own "sin" (as determined by... you? ...God?...who?)
(By the way, speaking of not answering questions...do you believe in Jesus, Christ, Son of the the Living God? I didn't mention belief systems. Not Christianty or any -anity/-ism.
;-) )
OK -- I'm just not understanding your question/argument.
I'm not presenting an argument. Just asking a question about a doctrine common to many people who call themselves believers in Jesus Christ and the Bible (I will try to avoid the term "christian" since you seem to dislike it) which does not seem to me to make much sense:
If God doesn't want human beings to be sinful why did he decide that if the first pair of humans sinned that all of humanity would inherit a sinful nature.
And wondering what your take is on the issue.
You invoked free will as an explanation but, as I said before, that does nothing to address the problem because one can have free will without also having been given a sinful nature against which it must be in constant conflict.
(By the way, speaking of not answering questions...do you believe in Jesus, Christ, Son of the the Living God? I didn't mention belief systems. Not Christianty or any -anity/-ism.
;-) )
I have no belief in any God, living or otherwise, nor any belief that any historical personage, by the name of Jesus, Yeshua or anything else, is the Son of any God.
But I'm willing to be convinced. However, I would require quite hard evidence for such a claim---just as I would for someone claiming to be in telepathic contact with aliens in the Andromeda Galaxy, or that he was abducted by interdimensional entities from the Astral Plane, that John Edward can contact my dead relatives, or, for that matter, that homeopathic medicines have any effectiveness beyond that of a placebo.
Evangelical Christians (who have published SF on just about every other subject) still shy away from aliens from other worlds in their mainstream for this reason – they don’t believe there’s anyone else out there.
I'm a bit surprised at this avoidance on the part of evangelicals (or is it just evangelical publishers). I was raised as an evangelical and never had any religious problems with the idea that God had created intelligent life on other planets. I do occasionally encounter this view among evangelicals but only very rarely and, among the many I know personally (including family), they seem to consider the issue an open question.
I can't say all evangelicals feel that way, but the ones taking the financial risk of publishing Christian SF about aliens don't seem to think there's a market for it (of course, they don't see a market for Christian "space opera", either.
Couple of other points:
1) I don't dislike the word "Christian", it's just that it's not useful any more. It has too much baggage -- "America is a Christian Nation" is untrue in the sense that Luke used it when he reported that followers of Christ were now called "Christians" in Acts 11:26. C.S. Lewis talks about the uselessness of the title in MERE CHRISTIANITY. Christianity is the belief that Jesus was the Christ (a title meaning "the annointed one"), that he came to Earth to redeem a fallen humanity, was crucified to pay for sins we (as a race) had committed, died, and rose again three days later. Believing in Jesus the Christ is Christianity. But that belief system is more about your relationship with Jesus than it is about a systematic religion. Jesus was ALWAYS more interested in the relationships He had with people than he was in establishing a religion. So when you say that you nolonger believe in christianity -- there are some Believers who would agree with you. The important part is having a relationship with Jesus that is all about Him being your Savior and Lord (Master, Commander, In Charge) of your life.
2) Would calling you a strict materialist be a fair statement, then?
3) "If God doesn't want human beings to be sinful why did he decide that if the first pair of humans sinned that all of humanity would inherit a sinful nature."
I know you don't think "free will" answers the question, but I disagree. The answer to your question is all about free will. Without the ability to freely choose wrongly, choosing "rightly" is meaninless. In Christianity, Judaism and Islam, Adam and Eve were the first. Sort of a v1.0 of humanity. To find out if the version worked, God tested it: given that all other things are equal, there was one variable: "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." (Gen 2:17) [This is good scientific method as well: manipulated variable = eat/don't eat; responding variable = die/don't die; controlled variables = the abundance of other trees in the garden and the freedom to do anything else.)
The test produced a failure of v1.0 rather than the hoped for pass.
Why didn't God then create humanity v2.0? He did, in Jesus Christ. He tested v2.0 more rigorously as well (Matthew 4:1-11) and this time it passed. God tested it further until it was sure to fail. It didn't.
Now I have the chance to "become" v2.0, the best version of humanity. I have to let myself be subsumed in that version -- I have to give myself to Christ...
I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure this is all too mystical for you, but it's the best I can do to explain it. CS Lewis does a better job in MERE CHRISTIANITY. He wasn't a strict materialist -- but he had no room in his life for Christ. You could try his book.
2) Would calling you a strict materialist be a fair statement, then?
No. It isn't. I'm entirely agnostic on the question in metaphysics as to what the basic "stuff" of reality is. Neutral monism, panpsychism and several other positions seem just as plausible to me.
know you don't think "free will" answers the question, but I disagree. The answer to your question is all about free will. Without the ability to freely choose wrongly, choosing "rightly" is meaninless.
Guy, please respond to my ACTUAL position. You keep acting as if my position is that God should have made humanity morally perfect but deterministic automatons and then you go on to argue for the value of free will.
But here's what I actually said:
"I am NOT asking why God gave us free will and therefore made sin possible. I am NOT arguing that it would better for us to be happy deterministic puppets. I am asking why God would have decided, when the first human sinned, that all following humans would inherit a powerful impulse to sin which didn't exist in the original humans."
You simply arent addressing the question I raised. I am agreeing we should have free will and the ability to sin. What I'm asking is why, in your set of beliefs, we were also given a debased nature with intense impulses to sin as well. Nothing you've said has even been responsive to that question.
As to you V.01 and V.02 comments:
He DID create a V.02 form of humanity (us): he modified humanity to include a strong inclination to sin not present in V.01 (pre-fall Adam and Eve).
To carry on with your analogy, what programmer in his right mind, on finding a glitch in a version of his software, would make it MORE prone to that glitch?
The answer, of course, is none.
I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure this is all too mystical for you, but it's the best I can do to explain it.
CS Lewis does a better job in MERE CHRISTIANITY. He wasn't a strict materialist -- but he had no room in his life for Christ. You could try his book.
I've read it. And found his reasoning riddled with obvious mistakes.
OK -- I guess I've just been dense.
What I've been trying to say with talk about free will is that you DON'T have a powerful urge to sin(Greek for "missing the mark"). You have a powerful urge to stay close to God and do His will.
Unfortunatly, humans frequently choose not to follow the real urge in our lives. We choose sin over and over and over again. And sometimes we choose NOT to sin. The first time we choose to sin, it becomes easier to choose sin after that. Every time we choose sin over not sin, we fall farther and farther from God. Our "mark" is to only do good. I don't. But my NOT doing good isn't God's fault. He made us to do only good our entire lives.
Jesus is the only one who did good all the way through His time on Earth. He is the only one behind whom I can hide from the righteous wrath of a God who keeps asking me to make the right choice.
So -- free will IS everything. You always have the desire to do the right thing. Don't you? Or do you have the constant desire to do the wrong thing? Sometimes I DO the right thing. Much of the time, I do not.
Or have you decided that the fallen state of man is normal state of affairs? Through the Holy Spirit, other Christians and even humanitarian organizations -- we work to express our true nature. A-theists and humanists (and Gene Roddenberry)believe that humans are ultimately perfectible. I disagree because we typically choose to hurt rather than help -- sin rather than glorify God. But the DESIRE to do good is there in the vast majority of us.
You say: "What sensible reason would God have to make the propensity to sin an inherited trait? It seems an odd thing to do for a being that doesn't want his creations to be sinful."
WE have a propensity to do good as an inherited trait. (I don't expect you'll listen to what I have to say if you believe that C.S. Lewis' reasoning is riddled with obvious mistakes. Just as obviously, Lewis himself didn't think his reasoning was so riddled, nor have several other people following him. I think he's correct. One or two others, who were not Christians when they began to read MERE CHRISTIANTY have thought his reasoning sound and have become Christians as a result of his witness. (And before you point it out, one or two have found his reasoning flawed. In GOD IN THE DOCK, he presents some of their arguments and responds to them as well. If he's wrong, at least he realized it and tried to address those arguments. My guess is that anyone can find holes in the reasoning of every person that believes that Jesus was the Son of God because we're all Human and cannot reason perfectly. We just try.
Summary:
1) Adam and Eve could have obeyed God or disobeyed God. For the most part, they obeyed the rule.
2) Once they disobeyed the rule, God had no choice but to tell them to leave paradise because He made it for the ones who obeyed Him.
3) The only way back into paradise is to obey God's law for your whole life.
4) Everyone since Adam and Eve has the same choice: obey God or disobey God. Despite all the good people have done no one has obeyed God their whole life.
5) Jesus obeyed God his whole life.
6) The only way to get back into paradise is to obey God for your whole life (always doing good) OR become one in Spirit with Jesus -- then He will speak on your behalf.
(We are, whether pre-Fall or post-Fall, v01. Jesus is v02. That's what Scripture says, in computer lingo when it talks about Jesus being a New Adam. You and I are descended from Adam and Eve.)
Basically, then, you are saying that you dont believe in the doctrine that humanity has a fallen nature or any strong natural inclination to sin.
Why didn't you just say so in the first place?
Not that your position is any more plausible. Its obvious that human beings have natural characteristics that pull them strongly toward actions christians define as sinful.
As just one obvious example, do you really think humans don't have a natural inclination to engage in sex before marriage and with sexual partners other than their spouse---to say nothing of the strong same-sex urges experienced by some human beings.
"I have no belief in any God, living or otherwise, nor any belief that any historical personage, by the name of Jesus, Yeshua or anything else, is the Son of any God.
"But I'm willing to be convinced. However, I would require quite hard evidence for such a claim--"
I'm sorry, but this isn't an intellectually honest conversation any longer -- and there's no possibility of ever convincing you of anything because it's impossible to have any "quite hard evidence" about God, as He, the Son and the Holy Spirit are incorporeal.
While I am sure you beleive you are being intelectually honest with yourself when you say something like:
"Why didn't you just say so in the first place? Not that your position is any more plausible."
So I've contrived positions in two mutally exclusive ways and you agree with neither and seem to claim that your position as Questioner is the only/strongest postion. Or am I completely wrong?
"I no longer believe in christianity, theism or any other supernaturalist belief system."
While you say no longer "believe", you state that we cannot know (a = not, gnosticos = to know):
"I'm entirely agnostic on the question in metaphysics as to what the basic 'stuff' of reality is. Neutral monism, panpsychism and several other positions seem just as plausible to me."
I'm not sure what neutral monism ("existence consists of one kind of primal substance, which in itself is neither mental nor physical, but is capable of mental and physical aspects or attributes") or panpsychism (either the view that all parts of matter involve mind, or the more holistic view that the whole universe is an organism that possesses a mind.) have to do with this discussion.
So, are you saying that because you cannot know and you cannot believe...you do...what? You either have to know something or believe something. I can't think of any in-between position except for "I don't care" -- but you clearly DO.
By the way, sex is purely biological, ameliorated by cultural and conscious ethical choices. It's an inadequate analogy for the existence of the "propensity to sin---having a fallen nature." Sin isn't biological, it's not coded into our DNA. Despite what you "neither believe or cannot know", sin is a spiritual issue -- which you cannot know or prove mathematically. It is an issue of faith. You DO however, have a capacity for faith. Every time you turn the light switch, you have unerring faith that the light will come on. But it is a situational faith -- when I was in Obot Idim in Nigeria, turning on the light was NOT a simple act of faith. It was a gamble. Sometimes it went on, sometimes it didn't. The proletariat was never sure when it would come on. But they still tried. You CAN believe. You have the capacity to...
...and now, I'm sure you think I'm ranting. I suppose I am because I would rather sit down with you over a cup of coffee and talk for a very long time. I want you to see the world as I do, and yet you can't because you are you and I am me and typing takes way too long...
I'm sorry, but this isn't an intellectually honest conversation any longer -- and there's no possibility of ever convincing you of anything because it's impossible to have any "quite hard evidence" about God, as He, the Son and the Holy Spirit are incorporeal.
Nonsense. There are all manner of examples of hard empirical evidence which would be sufficient to make holding a naturalistic worldview utterly irrational.
For example:
If faith healers went about laying hands on amputees and having their limbs instantly regrow.
If prophets made consistently made highly specific predictions of events they could not reasonably have known or guessed nor influenced the outcome of and they came true over and over such that chance couldn't reasonably account for it.
IGod allowed the souls of the dead each one visit after their death to loved ones to tell them about the afterlife---no reasonable person could then be a nonbeliever.
The person being intellectually dishonest is yourself if you wish to claim that an omnipotent being couldn't provide hard empirical evidence of his existence just because he's noncorporeal. There are countless ways he could do so. The three I stated above are just a tiny sampling.
A God, if he exists, doesn't bother to provide any good empirical evidence of that fact. But clearly he could.
The whole story of the Resurrection (Jesus rising from the dead and ascending to Heaven) is a perfect example of an event which, for anyone observing it, serves as hard empirical evidence for the divinity of Jesus.
So to claim its intellectually dishonest to think a noncorporeal being could provide empirical evidence for his existence is just flat-out absurd.
And what would the Second Coming be but irrefutable empirical evidence that the Christian faith is true and the others false?
I confess -- I no longer understand you at all.
If I were to tell you I've witnessed both miraculous healings and have spoken to people who have witnessed people raised fromthe dead, would you believe me?
Of course God can do all those things. Just because he doesn't do them in front of you doesn't mean He's never done them. You seem to me to be the kind of person who will not believe other people's testimonies. You have to see it with your own eyes.
Are you a 21st Century Doubting Thomas, willing only to believe in Christ, His crucifiction and resurrection if you can touch Him?
"Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, 'We have seen the Lord!'
"But he said to them, 'Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.'
"A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!'
"Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.'
"Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!'
"Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'" (John 20:24-29)
"So to claim its intellectually dishonest to think a noncorporeal being could provide empirical evidence for his existence is just flat-out absurd."
But I thought you didn't believe in any non-corporeal being? You said: "I no longer believe in christianity, theism or any other supernaturalist belief system." While you didn't state that you didn't believe in a non-corporeal being, a not believing in a "supernaturalist belief system" would seem to rule out non-corporeal beings as "supernatural".
THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION HAS GOTTEN FAR AFEILD OF THE ORIGINAL POST. I'D LOVE TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION THROUGH REGULAR EMAIL -- gstewart75@hotmail.com
I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU, DAVID.
If I were to tell you I've witnessed both miraculous healings and have spoken to people who have witnessed people raised fromthe dead, would you believe me?
I would use common sense. An individual's testimony, even one I actually knew personally and trusted, would by itself be insufficient to establish such a claim as more likely than not to be true. People can lie. They can be tricked. The reason I specifically mention faith healers performing such feats regularly and consistently is some that the evidence for it could build up to such a level that disbelieve would not be rational. One person telling me they saw it would be insufficient. But if a faith healer were followed by reporters filling it over and over. By people filming it in the desire to debunk what they take at first to be a clever fraud but who find THEMSELVES convinced. Thousands upon thousands seeing the amputees limbs regrow. Interviews with former amputees with follow-up investigations to find out if they REALLY were amputees.
With that sort of evidence I'd be convinced.
Of course God can do all those things. Just because he doesn't do them in front of you doesn't mean He's never done them. You seem to me to be the kind of person who will not believe other people's testimonies. You have to see it with your own eyes.
For some things seeing it with your own eyes is best (though even then one must look into methods that fraud can be performed---many people have seen things with their own eyes and been decieved by people performing magic tricks while claiming psychic powers).
But if you notice what I mention above at length as being convincing to me did not involve me seeing the healings with my own eyes (except indirectly through film).
What I am proposing is simple common sense. I hold the supernatural claims of your religion to the same standard of evidence I use for people claiming a psychic is for real, or that bigfoot exists or that they have been abducted by aliens.
Are you a 21st Century Doubting Thomas, willing only to believe in Christ, His crucifiction and resurrection if you can touch Him?
That would be one example of convincing evidence. But only one of thousands.
Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'"
Which is nothing but an invitation to drop one's standards of evidence---something which should always put a sensible person on guard.
So to claim its intellectually dishonest to think a noncorporeal being could provide empirical evidence for his existence is just flat-out absurd."
But I thought you didn't believe in any non-corporeal being?
I don't believe in any such being. We have none of the sort of evidence I describe which a noncorporeal being of God's unlimited power could provide. That's exactly why I remain without belief in them.
I prefer discussions such as these be public rather than through private email. The whole point of them for me is for people to see an open discuss of the case for religious claims be inspired to think over and investigate the issues for themselves.
So, if you're only willing to continue it by email, I'll just say thank you for the conversation and let it end here. The original topic has already ended after all. You said you don't believe in original sin or a fallen nature. I think your position that humans have no strong natural tendency toward sinful actions refuted by the experience of every human being alive so I have no need to argue that point.
Thanks for the discussion. I look forward to further posts on science fiction and christianity. I always like to hear the ideas of people with radically different opinions from my own.
I ought to proof-read more. Lots of typos in the above.
Post a Comment