Religions, Evolution and related Sciences

[rookhawk]

It is 100% true that you’ll not find any explicit statement in the Bible saying there are no aliens.

My argument is based on the silence of Scripture and the exclusivity of Scripture.

Silence as in the complete absence of anything of the sort and exclusivity in the sense that the Bible is the entire story of God and His relationship with man, no one else.

Some will say that’s thin. After all, absence of something does not disprove its existence. That’s fine. It’s my opinion but I think it’s the Scriptural way to look at it.

You have the entire story of creation of the entire universe at the beginning, the fall and redemption of man through a perfect sacrifice and then the end of all things. Culminating in a new heaven and a new earth in which God will dwell with His people. No mention of anything else.

If there were anyone else you think He would’ve mentioned it in His Word. All this stuff serves to deceive, confuse, distract and sow doubt. Nothing more.

The angles one could argue against mine are myriad so it’s hard to address them more specifically without them being brought up.

The crisis of Faith if there will be one is nested in three issues on how Christians can deal with aliens.

1.) Ezekiel appeared to mention them overtly, but elsewhere in the Torah there are just minor footnotes that could be interpreted as such. The New Testament we know today does quote from apocraphal books that most Christians do not read or know existed, but the Book of Enoch is loaded with mention of crafts and beings. It's weird and its ancient. Christians are not oriented through the current 66 book canon to think of their smallness in the grand scheme of the universe.

2.) I have a minority opinion on the reading of Genesis, but most take it as a literalist interpretation and the idea of aliens absolutely crumbles the Fall of Man and Original Sin using mainstream interpretations.

3.) Jesus as savior and part of the Trinity.

If anyone cares about my fringe interpretation of Genesis, it does stand up better to a larger universe than current mainstream interpretations. The point of Genesis is to explain what we are, why we are here, and our relationship to a creator. Adam was the first "Man", not the first "Human". It wasn't a scientific text, it was a moral text. What power did the first man gain from eating the forbidden fruit? "The Knowledge of Good and Evil". That's what made him a man, not an ape. Before then, humans were like animals, governed by natural impulse responses like animals. It's why we don't judge a lion for murdering an impala...it's just natural. The "Fall of Man" sets humans on a path of accountability for actions and a knowledge they are not God, they are immoral, and they have an obligation to be better.

You can imagine my interpretation of Genesis creates zero issues when we discover there are countless worlds with innumerable sentient beings existing in the future. Genesis didn't tell me about them, it told a story of my orientation on earth in relationship to my behavior, purpose, and agency.

Regarding Jesus and the Trinity, this will also be a crushing and confusing blow to some people of Faith when faced with other sentient lifeforms. It's because of weak understanding of scripture. We know of the unity of God and plurality of persons going all the way back to Genesis. We don't affirm there is only a Trinity, we affirm that is what was revealed to humanity. Even in Calvin's institutes he postulated as much. Alien's may not have Jesus, but they may have a 4th or 58th "person" of the Almighty that has dominion over other universes, multiverses, things beyond space and time, etc. This isn't heresy, its simply speculation that we know what we need to know to live within the confines of what we are and where we are. For some Christians, the idea of other beings with other revelation would be a massive crisis of Faith.

All of these crisis of Faith are from small minds and an improper orientation of what scripture was supposed to instruct for humans on earth.

 

[rookhawk]

Also, I didn’t say He reveals every single thing in Scripture.. I do however believe that He would’ve mentioned something as major as civilizations on other planets ESPECIALLY if those beings had eternal souls….

Read the book of Enoch. It was written in 300BC. It was good enough to be quoted from in Jude chapter 1 of the inspired New Testament. It was good enough to be retained in the Ethiopian Bible. Not all scripture was retained in every region of the early church. It was also part of the trove found in the dead sea scrolls, indicating that it was in contemporary use by Jews and Christians alike shortly after Christ. Enoch expounds upon and explains all the odd things alluded to very briefly in Genesis.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I agree with what you said we are the only ones made in his image. But I think he could have made all kinds of creatures in other images. I don’t assume aliens are humanoid. Inalso don’t assume they have souls. They may have some great technical capability but not be sentient in the way humans are.

I come down on the side of believing that gif very well have created creatures and dynamics on other planets that are far beyond our understanding. And that he did so for whatever purpose suits him.

So I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying about God. I think I just have a much larger list of pontential variance in what life form other planets might be. It doesn’t have to have a soul or be in gods image for him to have created it and it to exist.

I agree with a lot of what you said except primarily the part about technical capability. IF aliens did exist and they were intelligent enough and capable of reason and surpassed us in such a monumental way technologically speaking I think that would be in direct conflict with what we know about creation. All of creation speaks of God’s majesty with humanity being at the top. If something can surpass us in almost incomprehensible fashion then that’s a problem.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Read the book of Enoch. It was written in 300BC. It was good enough to be quoted from in Jude chapter 1 of the inspired New Testament. It was good enough to be retained in the Ethiopian Bible. Not all scripture was retained in every region of the early church. It was also part of the trove found in the dead sea scrolls, indicating that it was in contemporary use by Jews and Christians alike shortly after Christ. Enoch expounds upon and explains all the odd things alluded to very briefly in Genesis.

I’m aware of the book of Enoch. It’s not canon. I don’t recognize it anymore than I do the Apocrypha or any other book that was rejected as non-canonical. Regardless of what denomination or sect recognizes it/them. The Ethiopian Church also say they’re in possession of the Ark of the Covenant so I take anything they say with a grain of salt.

 

[fourfive8]

Re: cosmic origins, ETs, the Bible and the like… Probably around 1970-71??, my astrophysics professor and I had quite a few discussions on this subject. Off hours, I’d spend a lot of bs time in his office on various rare air topics. He shared some of his own, interesting insights about our reality and the subject of God. One thing stuck with me is the idea that the cosmos is both infinite and timeless and that God created all, simply setting things in motion by a flick of His finger. All things have developed based on His plan and will continue. It is simply beyond our ability to understand the concept of infinite. Yet, all we have to do to prove the existence of God to ourselves is to ask, “if God the artist and creator didn’t make this universe, who or what did?” Both that professor and his wife are still kicking and are both in emeritus status now having retired several years ago.

As to the existence of ETs the WOW signal and the more recent widely publicized FA18 FLIR, “tic tac” tracks… who knows?

Next up, “What is gravity?” I think Einstein came pretty close to explaining how it works , the base nature of it. No it’s not 9.8 meters per second per second! That simply describes what gravity does to massive objects, not the base nature of gravity. It is all about acceleration and expansion.

Next, try explaining the increasing red shift properties of light emanating from distant stars/galaxies based on distance, most recently described as detected by Hubble and Webb instruments.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

The crisis of Faith if there will be one is nested in three issues on how Christians can deal with aliens.

1.) Ezekiel appeared to mention them overtly, but elsewhere in the Torah there are just minor footnotes that could be interpreted as such. The New Testament we know today does quote from apocraphal books that most Christians do not read or know existed, but the Book of Enoch is loaded with mention of crafts and beings. It's weird and its ancient. Christians are not oriented through the current 66 book canon to think of their smallness in the grand scheme of the universe.

2.) I have a minority opinion on the reading of Genesis, but most take it as a literalist interpretation and the idea of aliens absolutely crumbles the Fall of Man and Original Sin using mainstream interpretations.

3.) Jesus as savior and part of the Trinity.

If anyone cares about my fringe interpretation of Genesis, it does stand up better to a larger universe than current mainstream interpretations. The point of Genesis is to explain what we are, why we are here, and our relationship to a creator. Adam was the first "Man", not the first "Human". It wasn't a scientific text, it was a moral text. What power did the first man gain from eating the forbidden fruit? "The Knowledge of Good and Evil". That's what made him a man, not an ape. Before then, humans were like animals, governed by natural impulse responses like animals. It's why we don't judge a lion for murdering an impala...it's just natural. The "Fall of Man" sets humans on a path of accountability for actions and a knowledge they are not God, they are immoral, and they have an obligation to be better.

You can imagine my interpretation of Genesis creates zero issues when we discover there are countless worlds with innumerable sentient beings existing in the future. Genesis didn't tell me about them, it told a story of my orientation on earth in relationship to my behavior, purpose, and agency.

Regarding Jesus and the Trinity, this will also be a crushing and confusing blow to some people of Faith when faced with other sentient lifeforms. It's because of weak understanding of scripture. We know of the unity of God and plurality of persons going all the way back to Genesis. We don't affirm there is only a Trinity, we affirm that is what was revealed to humanity. Even in Calvin's institutes he postulated as much. Alien's may not have Jesus, but they may have a 4th or 58th "person" of the Almighty that has dominion over other universes, multiverses, things beyond space and time, etc. This isn't heresy, its simply speculation that we know what we need to know to live within the confines of what we are and where we are. For some Christians, the idea of other beings with other revelation would be a massive crisis of Faith.

All of these crisis of Faith are from small minds and an improper orientation of what scripture was supposed to instruct for humans on earth.

Ezekiel did not describe aliens….. He described angels…

There were/was no humans/man before Adam… What you posit is a false teaching akin to gap theory and old earth theory.

Your “interpretation” of Genesis is purely eisegesis. Reading things into Scripture that aren’t there.

True Christianity does affirm only a Trinity. One God, three Persons. To put it bluntly, what you posit is heresy.

Small minded… Narrow is the way.

 

[Russ16]

I agree with a lot of what you said except primarily the part about technical capability. IF aliens did exist and they were intelligent enough and capable of reason and surpassed us in such a monumental way technologically speaking I think that would be in direct conflict with what we know about creation. All of creation speaks of God’s majesty with humanity being at the top. If something can surpass us in almost incomprehensible fashion then that’s a problem.

I guess I don’t see a species surpassing us in technology as being superior to us. They may not have been granted free will as God gave us. They may know have knowledge of good and evil.

They may be a very base species with a unique technological skill.

To use an analogy form star trek. Vulcans are technologically and intellectually more advanced than humans. But the whole point of the character line is showing that they aren’t superior to humans because they lack emotional components.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

It seems insane to me that in an infinite universe; people are arrogant to believe that this single rock is the only one with life. It also seems insane to believe that IF there is other life out there, that it will have the same requirements as us (carbon based, oxygen breathing).

I don’t think it requires arrogance or insanity.

I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a rare earth adherent but as a scientist, I think it’s important to look hard at the facts. There is no conclusive evidence of life, intelligent or otherwise, outside of the earth. There have been planets observed with elements in their atmospheres that may indicate life but not conclusively.

It’s also not unreasonable to look for life with the assumption that it would use the same building blocks as that on earth. If for no other reason than that there is no evidence for any other type of life. Other forms of life may hypothetically exist but they are highly speculative. We know that carbon life exists so that’s the best hope for any type of search. In a vast universe, we have a limited ability to investigate and it’s better to focus on what we know to be rather than what could hypothetically be.

I actually feel that it’s the other side that seems the most irrational (not insane). Without any conclusive evidence, they are convinced that extraterrestrial life must exist. I would suggest that the possibility of being alone in an uncaring universe is too terrifying for many to bear. In any case, it seems more hopeful than factual.

If life is found on Mars or Europa, either still alive or as fossils, it would change the argument overnight. Proving the existence of life beyond the earth would really let the genie out of the bottle. Personally I think it would be really cool. I just need to see some/any evidence first.

At this point, when it comes to life in the universe, we only have a sample size of one planet, and that makes it hard to draw useful conclusions from.

 

[rookhawk]

Quantum Entanglement is the most fascinating to me. To further "entangle" this with the whole dogma thing, Scientists, like Dr. Michael Guillen, have pointed at this as evidence that "God" would indeed be both omnipresent and omniscient. His book is worth reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Believing-Seeing-Physicist-Shattered-Necessity/dp/1496455584

Another mind bender is the mainstream theory that we may only have 1 electron. Yes, we have nearly infinite protons and neutrons, but something in the maths beyond my understanding suggests that there may only be a single electron, everywhere, in everything, all at once.

Weird.

 

[rookhawk]

Ezekiel did not describe aliens….. He described angels…

15-16 As I watched the four creatures, I saw something that looked like a wheel on the ground beside each of the four-faced creatures. This is what the wheels looked like: They were identical wheels, sparkling like diamonds in the sun. It looked like they were wheels within wheels, like a gyroscope.

17-21 They went in any one of the four directions they faced, but straight, not veering off. The rims were immense, circled with eyes. When the living creatures went, the wheels went; when the living creatures lifted off, the wheels lifted off. Wherever the spirit went, they went, the wheels sticking right with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. When the creatures went, the wheels went; when the creatures stopped, the wheels stopped; when the creatures lifted off, the wheels lifted off, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

22-24 Over the heads of the living creatures was something like a dome, shimmering like a sky full of cut glass, vaulted over their heads. Under the dome one set of wings was extended toward the others, with another set of wings covering their bodies. When they moved I heard their wings—it was like the roar of a great waterfall, like the voice of The Strong God, like the noise of a battlefield. When they stopped, they folded their wings.

There were/was no humans/man before Adam… What you posit is a false teaching akin to gap theory and old earth theory.

You're conflating man with human or homo genus. If Adam was the first human/man as a synonyms, where did Cain's wives come from? Your view is that man is a species, I view man as a creature with the capacity to know right from wrong.

To believe as you do, I have to dismiss evidence of a myriad of higher life form's bones and fossils. The profoundness of man is more than muscle and sinew, there were far better physical specimens of the homo genus than us. Capacity for morality and to inherently know good from evil is what makes us different.

Your “interpretation” of Genesis is purely eisegesis. Reading things into Scripture that aren’t there.

I read what is written, but you're looking for a scientific conclusion rather than a spiritual conclusion. It's patently clear that Genesis is a derivative of two far more ancient works that were knit together in antiquity. It's why the creation story is told twice and the turn of phrase is different. Literalism leads to continuous failure, reliant upon the "message" rather than hanging on the phrases as fact orients one better to the overall message being conveyed. Your way leads to canopy theories, young-earth claims, objection to the physically observable world, etc. The position you're holding obsesses over literal facts rather than profound truth.

True Christianity does affirm only a Trinity. One God, three Persons. To put it bluntly, what you posit is heresy.

It would not be heresy to affirm what has been revealed, you and I would agree. I find it heresy to assume to know the breadth of God beyond what is revealed or we can comprehend. I'm in no way a Calvanist, but from the very start orthodoxy expounded on the notion there can be far more to the personhood of God than what is revealed. That isn't heresy.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I guess I don’t see a species surpassing us in technology as being superior to us. They may not have been granted free will as God gave us. They may know have knowledge of good and evil.

They may be a very base species with a unique technological skill.

To use an analogy form star trek. Vulcans are technologically and intellectually more advanced than humans. But the whole point of the character line is showing that they aren’t superior to humans because they lack emotional components.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Aaron N]

I don’t think it requires arrogance or insanity.

I wouldn’t necessarily call myself a rare earth adherent but as a scientist, I think it’s important to look hard at the facts. There is no conclusive evidence of life, intelligent or otherwise, outside of the earth. There have been planets observed with elements in their atmospheres that may indicate life but not conclusively.

It’s also not unreasonable to look for life with the assumption that it would use the same building blocks as that on earth. If for no other reason than that there is no evidence for any other type of life. Other forms of life may hypothetically exist but they are highly speculative. We know that carbon life exists so that’s the best hope for any type of search. In a vast universe, we have a limited ability to investigate and it’s better to focus on what we know to be rather than what could hypothetically be.

I actually feel that it’s the other side that seems the most irrational (not insane). Without any conclusive evidence, they are convinced that extraterrestrial life must exist. I would suggest that the possibility of being alone in an uncaring universe is too terrifying for many to bear. In any case, it seems more hopeful than factual.

If life is found on Mars or Europa, either still alive or as fossils, it would change the argument overnight. Proving the existence of life beyond the earth would really let the genie out of the bottle. Personally I think it would be really cool. I just need to see some/any evidence first.

At this point, when it comes to life in the universe, we only have a sample size of one planet, and that makes it hard to draw useful conclusions from.

Yeah it makes sense to use the information we have readily accepted and work out from there, but I feel like it’s having a set of blinders on

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

Yeah it makes sense to use the information we have readily accepted and work out from there, but I feel like it’s having a set of blinders on

I think there’s a happy medium. A scientist has to be open to possibilities while not letting that bias them.

Kind of a version of being open minded but not much that your brain falls out. On one extreme a scientist may dismiss something unusual in their data that could indicate life while on the other end a scientist may make incorrect assumptions with data because they reinforce his preconceived ideas about extraterrestrial life.

Of course scientists are only human so that’s a constant struggle.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

15-16 As I watched the four creatures, I saw something that looked like a wheel on the ground beside each of the four-faced creatures. This is what the wheels looked like: They were identical wheels, sparkling like diamonds in the sun. It looked like they were wheels within wheels, like a gyroscope.

17-21 They went in any one of the four directions they faced, but straight, not veering off. The rims were immense, circled with eyes. When the living creatures went, the wheels went; when the living creatures lifted off, the wheels lifted off. Wherever the spirit went, they went, the wheels sticking right with them, for the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels. When the creatures went, the wheels went; when the creatures stopped, the wheels stopped; when the creatures lifted off, the wheels lifted off, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.

22-24 Over the heads of the living creatures was something like a dome, shimmering like a sky full of cut glass, vaulted over their heads. Under the dome one set of wings was extended toward the others, with another set of wings covering their bodies. When they moved I heard their wings—it was like the roar of a great waterfall, like the voice of The Strong God, like the noise of a battlefield. When they stopped, they folded their wings.



You're conflating man with human or homo genus. If Adam was the first human/man as a synonyms, where did Cain's wives come from? Your view is that man is a species, I view man as a creature with the capacity to know right from wrong.

To believe as you do, I have to dismiss evidence of a myriad of higher life form's bones and fossils. The profoundness of man is more than muscle and sinew, there were far better physical specimens of the homo genus than us. Capacity for morality and to inherently know good from evil is what makes us different.






I read what is written, but you're looking for a scientific conclusion rather than a spiritual conclusion. It's patently clear that Genesis is a derivative of two far more ancient works that were knit together in antiquity. It's why the creation story is told twice and the turn of phrase is different. Literalism leads to continuous failure, reliant upon the "message" rather than hanging on the phrases as fact orients one better to the overall message being conveyed. Your way leads to canopy theories, young-earth claims, objection to the physically observable world, etc. The position you're holding obsesses over literal facts rather than profound truth.


It would not be heresy to affirm what has been revealed, you and I would agree. I find it heresy to assume to know the breadth of God beyond what is revealed or we can comprehend. I'm in no way a Calvanist, but from the very start orthodoxy expounded on the notion there can be far more to the personhood of God than what is revealed. That isn't heresy.

Ezekiel had a vision. So what? I contend it was angels. Maybe cherubim. Not sure. Not aliens though. You’re reading that into it.

Cain obviously married his sister. God didn’t make marriage laws until later. Abraham himself married his half sister.. Tell me you haven’t done any actual research without telling me you haven’t done any actual research. Evolution is incompatible with the Bible. There was no gap in creation and the entire universe is a little over 6000 years old. Your position is actually reliant on what man says, misquoting Scripture and eisegesis. Trying to reconcile what man says with the Bible, not the other way around.

It is heresy to go against what He has said about Himself. He revealed Himself as one God in three Persons. You say there could be more. You are directly refuting what He said. Heresy..

Watching Ancient Aliens and listening to Joe Rogan too much.

 

[rookhawk]

Ezekiel had a vision. So what? I contend it was angels. Maybe cherubim. Not sure. Not aliens though. You’re reading that into it.

Cain obviously married his sister. God didn’t make marriage laws until later. Abraham himself married his half sister.. Tell me you haven’t done any actual research without telling me you haven’t done any actual research. Evolution is incompatible with the Bible. There was no gap in creation and the entire universe is a little over 6000 years old. Your position is actually reliant on what man says, misquoting Scripture and eisegesis. Trying to reconcile what man says with the Bible, not the other way around.

It is heresy to go against what He has said about Himself. He revealed Himself as one God in three Persons. You say there could be more. You are directly refuting what He said. Heresy..

Watching Ancient Aliens and listening to Joe Rogan too much.

My faith has extra-biblical apologetics. Yours relies on literalist internal critique only. I can be wrong in light of new facts and my faith remains. Yours is either shattered by new data, or relies upon literalism in defiance of facts.

That’s not good. The young earth theory is an explanation in support of literalism, but it is unsupported by the observable universe.

Purely by outcomes, those in my high school that held to your interpretation fell away spectacularly because they put their faith in literalism until shattered. The pragmatic had lasting faith unshattered by the latest discoveries.

Respectfully, your dogma in the non-essentials leads many astray.

In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

My faith has extra-biblical apologetics. Yours relies on literalist internal critique only. I can be wrong in light of new facts and my faith remains. Yours is either shattered by new data, or relies upon literalism in defiance of facts.

That’s not good. The young earth theory is an explanation in support of literalism, but it is unsupported by the observable universe.

Purely by outcomes, those in my high school that held to your interpretation fell away spectacularly because they put their faith in literalism until shattered. The pragmatic had lasting faith unshattered by the latest discoveries.

Respectfully, your dogma in the non-essentials leads many astray.

In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.

Sounds like your faith relies on extra-Biblical apologetics.

Essentials? One essential is believing in God says He is. Your view of Him is flawed. “revealed to us as the Trinity but who knows how He reveals Himself elsewhere” is what I got out of that. That’s not good. Straight up heresy.

Young earth is the only compatible belief with Genesis and the genealogies. Your dogma is the one that leads many astray. You literally have to ignore Scripture to reach your conclusions. You’re relying on what man says over what God said.

 

[jruby]

Could Christianity exist without the Bible? Just curious as to thoughts on this?

 

[Red Leg]

Evolution is incompatible with the Bible.

You honestly believe this? Across all species and life, or just Homo Sapiens?

 

[VertigoBE]

Evolution is incompatible with the Bible. There was no gap in creation and the entire universe is a little over 6000 years old.

We’ll have to strongly agree to strongly disagree

 

[Russ16]

Sounds like your faith relies on extra-Biblical apologetics.

Essentials? One essential is believing in God says He is. Your view of Him is flawed. “revealed to us as the Trinity but who knows how He reveals Himself elsewhere” is what I got out of that. That’s not good. Straight up heresy.

Young earth is the only compatible belief with Genesis and the genealogies. Your dogma is the one that leads many astray. You literally have to ignore Scripture to reach your conclusions. You’re relying on what man says over what God said.

Given that God is omnipotent it stands to reason he has the ability to reveal himself however and wherever he wishes, and that the Trinity remains. I don't believe that I'm so important that God can only exist in the ways he chooses to reveal himself to me.

I have not seen a burning bush, or a flashing light that caused me to be temporarily blind. God has not chosen to reveal himself in those ways to me. Who knows how he has revealed himself to others.