Jesus on exo-planets?

ReefBreak

I originally asked this on the After Hours forum, but it was suggested that I ask it here instead.

Genuine question for people who believe in God. Given the recent news of a potentially earth-like planet orbiting our nearest star.

Do you also believe in an alien Jesus or alien prophets? Basically, if we were to prove the existence of intelligent life in the universe, via SETI, or the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, does that mean that these planets will be visited by a little green man version of Jesus?

vicwatson

Do you have to believe in a God to answer here? Or?

livedadream

ReefBreak wrote: »

Do you also believe in an alien Jesus or alien prophets? Basically, if we were to prove the existence of intelligent life in the universe, via SETI, or the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, does that mean that these planets will be visited by a little green man version of Jesus?

presumably it would be similar to the population of Earth.

*2000 years after a man from NASA first showed up they'd find a book that little green man has written about the experience and start worshipping that guy from NASA that showed up.

if Jesus was able to turn water into wine can you imagine what Alien Jesus would be able to do!

*not exactly sure of the dates to be fair.

beach_walker

Well personally I don't believe there is any other intelligent, sentient aliens in the universe (not due to religious reasons, rather a mix of Fermi and the Great Filter thinkings) but as to

does that mean that these planets will be visited by a little green man version of Jesus?

Sure, if there are, why not. I know others who say it was a unique event, equally maybe so.

Nick Park

ReefBreak wrote: »

does that mean that these planets will be visited by a little green man version of Jesus?

Not necessarily. Intelligent life can exist perfectly well without having a moral sense of right or wrong.

Think of our own oceans here on earth. You have lots of intelligent life (such as the octopus) but we wouldn't think of an octopus as being made in God's image, as sinning, or as being in need of salvation.

In Christian belief it is not man's intelligence that makes us unique, but that we bear the image of God by having a spirit, a moral sense of right or wrong, and a free will to choose right or wrong.

Would God have made similar moral beings in his image on other planets? Who knows? If He did, would they need a Saviour? Only if they had used their moral freedom to choose wrongly. (CS Lewis actually wrote a novel 'Perelandra'/'Voyage to Venus') which speculated about such a scenario on another planet).

Either way it would seem to have no bearing on Christian beliefs as concerns our own species and our own planet.

ReefBreak

Nick Park wrote: »

Not necessarily. Intelligent life can exist perfectly well without having a moral sense of right or wrong.

Think of our own oceans here on earth. You have lots of intelligent life (such as the octopus) but we wouldn't think of an octopus as being made in God's image, as sinning, or as being in need of salvation.

In Christian belief it is not man's intelligence that makes us unique, but that we bear the image of God by having a spirit, a moral sense of right or wrong, and a free will to choose right or wrong.

Would God have made similar moral beings in his image on other planets? Who knows? If He did, would they need a Saviour? Only if they had used their moral freedom to choose wrongly. (CS Lewis actually wrote a novel 'Perelandra'/'Voyage to Venus') which speculated about such a scenario on another planet).

Either way it would seem to have no bearing on Christian beliefs as concerns our own species and our own planet.

No offense but none of this makes any sense whatsoever. Pleas explain, with some proof.

Nick Park

ReefBreak wrote: »

No offense but none of this makes any sense whatsoever. Pleas explain, with some proof.

Proof of what?

Proof that most of us don't generally think of an octopus as being sinful or in need of salvation?

Proof that Christians actually do believe certain things about God and man?

Or proof that CS Lewis wrote a book called 'Perelandra'?

uck51js9zml2yt

Nick Park wrote: »

Proof of what?

Proof that most of us don't generally think of an octopus as being sinful or in need of salvation?

Proof that Christians actually do believe certain things about God and man?

Or proof that CS Lewis wrote a book called 'Perelandra'?

I call you out on CS Lewis as I never heard of the book *;)


*Must check it out .....it's the 2nd volume of a space trilogy....never knew that!!

Nick Park

Malcolm Nutritious Listener wrote: »

I call you out on CS Lewis as I never heard of the book *;)


*Must check it out .....it's the 2nd volume of a space trilogy....never knew that!!

They're actually rather good. Best to start off with the first one, 'Out of the Silent Planet'. It's been over 30 years since I read them, but I remember finding them pretty absorbing and thought-provoking.

Cabaal

Nick Park wrote: »

Not necessarily. Intelligent life can exist perfectly well without having a moral sense of right or wrong.

Ah but morals are learned from society and of course can vary, whats right for one person is not always right for another...as we all know.

So its a very broad claim to say intelligent life can exist without morals, we may simply believe that life has no morals but its morals may simply differ to ours. (after all our own species differ on morals depending on where you meet the person or what faith they follow).

Think of our own oceans here on earth. You have lots of intelligent life (such as the octopus) but we wouldn't think of an octopus as being made in God's image, as sinning, or as being in need of salvation.

Indeed we wouldn't, nor would we think it of whales but yet they are very very complex creatures with very complex social structures, much of which we don't understand yet.

So who knows, maybe even whales see us as immoral

In Christian belief it is not man's intelligence that makes us unique, but that we bear the image of God by having a spirit, a moral sense of right or wrong, and a free will to choose right or wrong.
.

So imagine in the morning we meet a species that has existed for a million years, they believe they were created in god's image, have a spirit and they can exist on a higher plane of existence..

So who's right or wrong? , our species isn't around very long (a blink of an eye in our own planets history) so their belief is a much longer held.

Of course we could just as easily meet a species that don't believe in such things

Manach

I was going to mention CS Lewis, but was beaten to it by more agile posters.
The interaction of faith and Aliens has been a rich seam in history. It can range from the subtle from Clark's Childhood end, humourous in the High Crusadem to that of the engaging / violent in Orson Scot Card's Speaker for the Dead. Given the utility of having a religious faith as an evolution survival mechanism, if there are other life forms (Drake's equations not withstanding) then some form of recognisable religious interaction might be possible.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

It's an interesting bit of conjecture but nothing more.

Conceivably if there are other life forms out there it doesn't raise massive conflict with Christianity. The Bible is God's revelation to mankind. That's why for example we don't seem it applicable to other species even on this planet.

Perhaps God could reveal Himself to other life forms differently. That doesn't diminish that He has spoken to us through Jesus, that He was crucified for our sins and rose again on the third day. It doesn't nullify the fact that He commands all people everywhere to repent.

Interesting question though. It's all massively spurious conjecture in comparison to what God has tangibly revealed to us though and that's the note of caution.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Giacomo McGubbin

Extra terrestrial or alien life is by it's very definition is not of this world. Christians have know about such life for thousands of years.
It can be non physical as well as physical. Of course there is yet to be found any evidence of alien life, but NASA spends billions looking for the evidence all the same, and perhaps, we can hope, might find it in our lifetimes. Despite no evidence having been discovered yet, given the enormity of this universe (and perhaps the many others), it's seems too hard to believe we are the only beings in it. In fact Christians already believe we aren't. Angels being one example of such beings. Christ came to man though not the Angels, as their situation is quite different.

solodeogloria

Cabaal wrote: »

Ah but morals are learned from society and of course can vary, whats right for one person is not always right for another...as we all know

Good evening!

Another thing to point out.

We don't all know this at all. It has been debated for thousands of years. The ancient Greeks held to moral objectivity. Look to Plato's works. The Jews and the Christians hold to objective morality. That's clear from both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament.

In fact I'd hazard a guess and say that the only major movement towards moral relativism has been as a result of secular thinking.

We don't know this. It's highly debated. Most Christians believe that good and evil are revealed to us by God in His Word.

This is worth discussing on another thread as we don't all know what you've stated is true. You believe it yes, but everyone doesn't agree with you.

It's very very important to make that clear.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

4068ac1elhodqr

The bunch of lads that visited earth in the movie (allegedly true story) The 4th kind
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220198/
Did not seem to be a friendly bunch at all, they spoke a bit of ancient Sumerian
which was handy enough for anyone down with that lingo.
Their greeting proclaimed themselves to be gods as such.

4068ac1elhodqr

Trevor Mysterious Test wrote: »

...movie (allegedly true story) The 4th kind

There is allegedly is 'case recorded footage' (not recreated for the move), available on utube, via the search term 'The Fourth Kind - Dr. Abbey Tyler Hypnosis session'. The wee alien lad says hello, howya and is also on about being of a god-like standing.

The movie itself is strangely only rated PG-13, however you wouldn't watch it on a halloween night especially if there are Owls about the place. And the clip above certainly would be a bit 'jeepers creepers' for some folks to say the least.

Cabaal

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

In fact Christians already believe we aren't. Angels being one example of such beings.

Seriously, your going to include angels in this discussion about alien life?
sigh

Nick Park

Cabaal wrote: »

Seriously, your going to include angels in this discussion about alien life?
sigh

To be fair, the 'discussion' on alien life was prompted by the OP asking how Christians, with their beliefs, feel about the potential of alien life.

So there would seem to be little call for histrionic sighs because a Christian stays on topic and includes angels, which are an element of Christian belief.

Giacomo McGubbin

Cabaal wrote: »

Seriously, your going to include angels in this discussion about alien life?
sigh

Seriously, you didn't know these spiritual beings are not of this world ?
Well, pardon me for daring to mention them in this Christianity forum. What was I thinking.

Peregrinus

At solodeogloria points out on page 1, at the moment the question raised by the OP is nothing more than an "interesting conjecture".

Still, let's conjecture. Let's suppose that there are living beings on other planets, and we come to know about this.

Let's also assume that we come to know (don't ask how) that these being are intelligent, rational, possessed of free will (they can undertake voluntary actions) and a moral sense (they consider some actions can be right/good, and others wrong/evil).

A lot of mainstream Christian opinion would consider that being with these characteristics are indeed "made in God's image", I think it's fair to say.

Would Christians expect a separate, special revelation to these beings? A second incarnation? No, I think is the answer. The whole of creation is redeemed by the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus; it doesn't have to happen a second time at another location. Christians are much more likely to take the injuction "go and teach all nations" to extend to these beings.

Millions of people lived and died in the new world without ever having heard of Jesus Christ or his message. When Christians came to know of the New World, they didn't assume a second incarnation for the benefit of it's inhabitants; they saw a need for a missionary endeavour. And if that's how it was with the New World, isn't that how it's likely to be with new worlds?

looksee

Or they might have had a simultaneous revelation, but interpreted it differently, while being just as confident about their rightness. I wonder what that would lead to?

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

Ah but morals are learned from society and of course can vary, whats right for one person is not always right for another...as we all know.

Richard Dawkin's, in The God Delusion, highlighted anthropological research which indicated that mankind the world over shared essentially the same morality.

That is: when stripped of influences arising from location, culture, education, religious beliefs, etc. morality had basic building blocks which were common to all. This, whether a primitive tribe unexposed to modernity, us in the West, those in the East.

He was trying to establish the notion of common descent - morality stemming back to the root from which we all came, evolutionary speaking.

I wouldn't disagree with him or the research, since I do think there is a common root to mankind's morality. We just differ on the nature of the common root.

-


It doesn't matter to Christians that folk differ on points of morality - since Christianity explains why that is. The root morality is the same but folk can suppress and deny it in order to have their 'sinful' will be done. They can also have been damaged, say by virtue of upbringing, to believe that this or that activity is okay.

That they hold a different view doesn't make it right when compared to The Common Standard.

The question is whether or not there is a common standard, not whether folk recognize it and adhere to it, or not.


-

In the Christianity forum, answers to questions posed will suppose there is from the outset.

recedite

"The Common Standard" of morality, such as it exists, is basically just a way for all of us to get along with each other. The Golden Rule from ancient times, which can be expanded upon to the nth degree. But it all depends on who is inside the in-group and who is outside it. Morality gets diluted as you move further away from family, to tribe, to nation, to species etc..
This allows most of us to eat an octopus, but not another human. But from the octopus point of view, being eaten by a human is a highly immoral act.

So this has ramifications in the event of us coming into contact with an intelligent alien species, if our interests did not align with their interests.
It would be "a good thing" morally for them to wipe us out, and vice versa. Like us eradicating the measles. Their Jesus would be called upon to defend their interests, and ours would be called upon to defend ours.

Just like in every inter-human war in history.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

But from the octopus point of view, being eaten by a human is a highly immoral act.

Really? For that to be the case, wouldn't an octopus have to have an understanding of right and wrong?

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

So this has ramifications in the event of us coming into contact with an intelligent alien species, if our interests did not align with their interests.
It would be "a good thing" morally for them to wipe us out, and vice versa. Like us eradicating the measles. Their Jesus would be called upon to defend their interests, and ours would be called upon to defend ours.

Just like in every inter-human war in history.

Well, no. There are plenty of wars in history - especially recent history - where there were no Jesuses invoked on either side. Or other religious figures. In the past, we slaughtered one another in the name of our respective gods in order to secure wealth, power, land and material possessions. Now, we slaughter one another in order to secure wealth, power, land and material possessions, typically without mentioning any gods. That's called progress, apparently.

But you put your finger on a good point; this would only happpen "if our interests did not align with their interests". (And, by "interests" here, we mean "appetite for wealth, power, land and material possessions".) And we might reasonably ask whether there could be any conflict of material interests between us and an impossibly remote alien civilisation. Assume we could exchange information with them, but nothing else. Even if we were capable of fighting them (and if all we can exchange is information, the avaible tactics of war are limited) it would probably not be in our interests to do so. The only way we could profit materially from our encounter with them is by learning something from them, and vice versa, so it would be in both our civilizations' interests to avoid war, and simply share information about ourselves with one another.

topmanamillion

I've always thought that intelligent life on other planets would blow the whole religion thing apart.
Or maybe the scientioligists would have a field day and their theory that we are all lizards from space would make the most sense out of any of all earth's religions.

If say for example we found an intelligent life form similar to humans in terms of intelligence and length of time their race existed but they had evolved without religion.
They had used abstract thought to investigate life and their world as opposed to giving credit to a deity.
As a result this race had never suffered historical black spots like the dark ages.
They had simply used their intelligence to further their race.
How would we feel about our race?

Absolam

I'm sure we'd find a way to feel superior all the same. Or a reason to try and wipe them out. We're very inventive that way

Peregrinus

But what if, say, for example, we found the complete opposite? A race whose reflections on the meaning of existence led them to conclude that the only life worth living was one that glorified creation and its creator, as opposed to seeking wealth, power and material possessions through conflict and selfishness? As a result this race hand never suffered historical black spots like war, slavery or oppression; they had simply used their intelligence to promote the growth and flourishing of their creative capacities.

Then how would we feel about our race?

It's easy to fantasize an alien race to confirm pretty well any world-view. It doesn't prove very much, though.

Absolam

I'd say we'd still try to kill them. As species go I don't think we play well with others.

Jayop

Peregrinus wrote: »

But what if, say, for example, we found the complete opposite? A race whose reflections on the meaning of existence led them to conclude that the only life worth living was one that glorified creation and its creator, as opposed to seeking wealth, power and material possessions through conflict and selfishness? As a result this race hand never suffered historical black spots like war, slavery or oppression; they had simply used their intelligence to promote the growth and flourishing of their creative capacities.

Then how would we feel about our race?

It's easy to fantasize an alien race to confirm pretty well any world-view. It doesn't prove very much, though.

We'd wipe them out sadly.

Mellor

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Extra terrestrial or alien life is by it's very definition is not of this world. Christians have know about such life for thousands of years.

Where have Christians ever made reference to intelligent life from other planets? It's a ridiculous jump to try and use acceptance of angels to justify that one. Angels are not physical life. A child could tell you the supposed difference between heaven and outer space.

I don't remember genesis ever mentioning any side projects God had on the go. It's clearly mans interpretation of how the universe might be created by god. At the time the known universe was earth. Some of the more progressive Christians might be able to reconcile the existence of intelligent like with God's work. But for some of the more dogmatic groups, Creationists for example, the confirmation of intelligent like on another planet would blown their belief system out of the water.

Peregrinus

Mellor wrote: »

Where have Christians ever made reference to intelligent life from other planets? It's a ridiculous jump to try and use acceptance of angels to justify that one. Angels are not physical life. A child could tell you the supposed difference between heaven and outer space.

I don't remember genesis ever mentioning any side projects God had on the go. It's clearly mans interpretation of how the universe might be created by god. At the time the known universe was earth. Some of the more progressive Christians might be able to reconcile the existence of intelligent like with God's work. But for some of the more dogmatic groups, Creationists for example, the confirmation of intelligent like on another planet would blown their belief system out of the water.

Well, no. Given that we have already learned about the universe hasn't blown their belief system out of the water, I'd have to say that it's unlikely that any scientific discovery is likely to do so.

Having said that, I really don't think that this particular discovery - intelligent alien life - would pose a huge problem for fundamentalist biblical literalists. Yes, Genesis doesn't mention alien life but, then, there's lots of things that Genesis doesn't mention. The existince of things that Genesis doesn't mention isn't inherently a threat to belief in the literal truth of Genesis. The problem is the existence of things that contradict Genesis, but I don't see that intelligent alien life would do that.

Mellor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, no. Given that we have already learned about the universe hasn't blown their belief system out of the water, I'd have to say that it's unlikely that any scientific discovery is likely to do so.

Are you saying that any scientific discovery wouldn't blow it out of the water from a logical point of view, or from their point of view?
As, I'd consider the two to be very different (I was referring to the former btw). A fundamentalist who continues to bury his head in the sand despite evidence means nothing really.

The problem is the existence of things that contradict Genesis, but I don't see that intelligent alien life would do that.

I agree that only contradictions are an issue. But I'd consider the existence of intelligent life to be a contradiction.
To be clear, I'm distinguishing between any life and intelligent life in this instance. I wouldn't expect the discovery on some bacteria light years away to be of much significance to a biblical literalists

Peregrinus

Mellor wrote: »

Are you saying that any scientific discovery wouldn't blow it out of the water from a logical point of view, or from their point of view?

From their point of view. From an objective point of view it was blown out of the water pretty much from day one.

Mellor wrote: »

I agree that only contradictions are an issue. But I'd consider the existence of intelligent life to be a contradiction.
To be clear, I'm distinguishing between any life and intelligent life in this instance. I wouldn't expect the discovery on some bacteria light years away to be of much significance to a biblical literalists

Well, can you point to a specific passage of scripture that, in a fundamentalist biblical literalist reading, would be inconsistent with the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life?

ReefBreak

ReefBreak wrote: »

No offense but none of this makes any sense whatsoever. Pleas explain, with some proof.

Well proof that "we bear the image of God by having a spirit, a moral sense of right or wrong, and a free will to choose right or wrong".

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to exo-planets, we have proof of their existence, and there'll be plenty more of this sort of thing when the James Webb Space Telescope goes up. However, when the bible stories were written, humans had no knowledge of stars, planets, galaxies, and the fact that the universe is 14 billion years old. So, anything that believers in Abrahamic religions say about exo-planets and their relationship to an all-powerful "God" should be taken with a pinch of salt. Basically, you're just making it up as you go along.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, no. There are plenty of wars in history - especially recent history - where there were no Jesuses invoked on either side.

Leaving aside religious wars, even in other wars there are generally army chaplains etc. on both sides invoking the help of the gods. Often both sides praying to the same god too.

Absolam wrote: »

I'd say we'd still try to kill them. As species go I don't think we play well with others.

Quite likely, but even if we didn't, they would be right to conclude that we couldn't be trusted in the long term. Therefore they might decide the safest thing for aliens everywhere would be to get rid of us. It would be morally right from their point of view.

topmanamillion

Peregrinus wrote: »

But what if, say, for example, we found the complete opposite? A race whose reflections on the meaning of existence led them to conclude that the only life worth living was one that glorified creation and its creator, as opposed to seeking wealth, power and material possessions through conflict and selfishness? As a result this race hand never suffered historical black spots like war, slavery or oppression; they had simply used their intelligence to promote the growth and flourishing of their creative capacities.

Then how would we feel about our race?

It's easy to fantasize an alien race to confirm pretty well any world-view. It doesn't prove very much, though.

But systems like slavery were and are reinforced through religion.
There are references to them in the 3 holy books of the 3 major religions.
My point would be if no such books existed slavery would have lasted barely 30 seconds.

"Why have you chained up that man and forced him to work for you?"
"He has different coloured skin and God wrote a book and told me it was fine."
"Who's God? This sounds mental to me you should let that man go. He's a human being too and treating him differently than other human beings is wrong."
"I suppose when you put it like that it is mental"

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Leaving aside religious wars, even in other wars there are generally army chaplains etc. on both sides invoking the help of the gods. Often both sides praying to the same god too.

Not, however, to defend that particular sides interests; generally to say that whatever objective or reasoning had been put forward was acceptable to the deity in question, and it was therefore unquestionable 'on our side'.

recedite wrote: »

Quite likely, but even if we didn't, they would be right to conclude that we couldn't be trusted in the long term. Therefore they might decide the safest thing for aliens everywhere would be to get rid of us. It would be morally right from their point of view.

I think that's about spurious as the notion that octopi have a sense of morality to be honest; you can only say it would be morally right from their point of view if you invent a morality for them that makes it right. It's not what you might call an objective statement by any stretch.

Absolam

topmanamillion wrote: »

But systems like slavery were and are reinforced through religion. There are references to them in the 3 holy books of the 3 major religions. My point would be if no such books existed slavery would have lasted barely 30 seconds. "Why have you chained up that man and forced him to work for you?" "He has different coloured skin and God wrote a book and told me it was fine." "Who's God? This sounds mental to me you should let that man go. He's a human being too and treating him differently than other human beings is wrong." "I suppose when you put it like that it is mental"

I don't think so. Try "Why have you chained up that man and forced him to work for you?" "Because I want to and I have more power than anyone who disagrees. Now that I mention it you don't appear to be armed, would you mind stepping over here?". Religion comes a far second behind personal interest, if anything religion has tended to be a force that suppressed personal interests in favour of the wellbeing of the community (Love Thy Neighbour, Do Not Covet etc etc). It certainly helped communities feel justified in oppressing other communities to their own benefit but I suspect it was more often a justification than a reason.

Peregrinus

topmanamillion wrote: »

But systems like slavery were and are reinforced through religion.
There are references to them in the 3 holy books of the 3 major religions.
My point would be if no such books existed slavery would have lasted barely 30 seconds.

Yes. That explains why the Romans, with no religious books of any kind, never had slavery.

Nick Park

ReefBreak wrote: »

Well proof that "we bear the image of God by having a spirit, a moral sense of right or wrong, and a free will to choose right or wrong".

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that when it comes to exo-planets, we have proof of their existence, and there'll be plenty more of this sort of thing when the James Webb Space Telescope goes up. However, when the bible stories were written, humans had no knowledge of stars, planets, galaxies, and the fact that the universe is 14 billion years old. So, anything that believers in Abrahamic religions say about exo-planets and their relationship to an all-powerful "God" should be taken with a pinch of salt. Basically, you're just making it up as you go along.

Ah sorry, my mistake.

I made the error of taking your OP at face value when you said you wanted to find out how Christians would reconcile hypothetical discoveries with their beliefs.

I didn't realise you just wanted to troll the forum by attacking those beliefs.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

I think that's about spurious as the notion that octopi have a sense of morality to be honest; you can only say it would be morally right from their point of view if you invent a morality for them that makes it right. It's not what you might call an objective statement by any stretch.

Just to clarify, I doubt that an octopus has any sense of morality. But whether it has or not, does not affect the "objective morality" involved in any decision to kill and eat that octopus. My point being that what we perceive to be objective morality is usually a subjective morality from our own point of view. The same goes for our decision to eradicate measles, or an alien's decision to eradicate us.

It is however possible to tend towards an objective morality. We have seen this in pacifists/concientious objectors who refuse to participate in wars which further the interests of their own side, while such wars are damaging to humanity overall. Army chaplains on the other hand, do participate in the sense that they give comfort and support to their own side.

So if intelligent aliens were discovered, our sense of objective morality would have to change to encompass a new enlarged reality. Lets say for example, they disgusted us by their innate behaviours, or they looked like octopi, we should just accept that and adapt our morality to include their point of view in the overall scheme of things. But would we?

ReefBreak

Nick Park wrote: »

Ah sorry, my mistake.

I made the error of taking your OP at face value when you said you wanted to find out how Christians would reconcile hypothetical discoveries with their beliefs.

I didn't realise you just wanted to troll the forum by attacking those beliefs.

No, you might call it trolling. I don't. It's genuine question about how one can reconcile Christian beliefs against the size of the known universe. I once believed in God, but no longer, once I realised how old and massive the universe is.

Nick Park

ReefBreak wrote: »

No, you might call it trolling. I don't. It's genuine question about how one can reconcile Christian beliefs against the size of the known universe. I once believed in God, but no longer, once I realised how old and massive the universe is.

The size of the universe does not conflict with my Christian beliefs in any way. Everyone of those beliefs is just as valid in a massive universe as a small universe.

Like many Christians, each new discovery about the universe fills me with awe at the God who created it.

Btw, I was once an atheist, but no longer.

solodeogloria

ReefBreak wrote: »

No, you might call it trolling. I don't. It's genuine question about how one can reconcile Christian beliefs against the size of the known universe. I once believed in God, but no longer, once I realised how old and massive the universe is.

Good afternoon!

Forgive me but where in the Bible can one find anything about the size of the universe?

Moreover if the Bible is actually silent on the existence of other life on other planets why would this be difficult to reconcile?

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ReefBreak

Nick Park wrote: »

The size of the universe does not conflict with my Christian beliefs in any way. Everyone of those beliefs is just as valid in a massive universe as a small universe.

Like many Christians, each new discovery about the universe fills me with awe at the God who created it.

OK, but you also believe that the God that created the Universe looks human? As the bible says, we were created in his image.

On the other hand, we know that the universe is 14 billion years old, with humans only appearing about 160,000 years ago. So, why did God wait around 13,999,840,000 years to put his son on earth? And why did he surround this planet with an unimaginably huge universe. Why did he pick one planet on a random arm of a random galaxy on which to create beings that look like him? As you've probably guessed, it was this realisation that means that I am now an atheist.

beach_walker

ReefBreak wrote: »

No, you might call it trolling. I don't. It's genuine question about how one can reconcile Christian beliefs against the size of the known universe. I once believed in God, but no longer, once I realised how old and massive the universe is.

Well what size universe and what age would it have to be for you to find belief in God acceptable?

ReefBreak

beach_walker wrote: »

Well what size universe and what age would it have to be for you to find belief in God acceptable?

A universe that was a couple of thousand years old, and in which this was the only solar system.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Don't you feel this is getting a bit silly?

Quite a number of posters have informed you that the Bible doesn't define how large the universe is. Moreover it doesn't say how old it is either.

You're entitled to reject the Gospel but you really can't expect people to engage with you if you're not willing to listen to what others have said to you.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

ReefBreak

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Don't you feel this is getting a bit silly?

Quite a number of posters have informed you that the Bible doesn't define how large the universe is. Moreover it doesn't say how old it is either.

You're entitled to reject the Gospel but you really can't expect people to engage with you if you're not willing to listen to what others have said to you.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Hold on, I am absolutely listening to what people are saying, but I simply can't reconcile what I am hearing with what we know as a fact about the known universe.

To answer your earlier question, of course the bible has no mention of the size of the universe - the people who wrote those stories didn't have telescopes, so they had no idea that there are a couple of hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and a couple of hundred billion galaxies in the known universe. But now that we know this, it seems rather silly to continue to believe that these stories are true. And that was my point from the beginning, how can you reconcile belief in a humanoid God if there is life on exo-planets?

solodeogloria

Good afternoon,

1) what are you hearing?
2) what are you trying to reconcile it to?

From my standpoint there's nothing to reconcile it to because the Bible says sweet nothing about either the age or the size of the universe.

What "stories" are in conflict with anything we know about the universe?

I also don't believe that God is "humanoid".

tl;dr - you're not making very much sense at all. It's frustrating because I want to understand.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria