What Think Ye of Jesus?
I want to start off this post by explaining that I hold Christianity in extremely high regard. I was raised and remained a Christian for many years. In my view Christianity holds so many wonderful insights concerning God and God’s relationship with the world that it deserves the prominence it has. There is no doubt in my mind that God works powerfully through Christianity. However, I have also come to believe that the exclusivity of many Christian claims particularly its soteriology are no longer either rationally tenable or beneficial to our world. Accordingly I want to lay out my rational objections to the soteriological exclusivity of Christianity.
Jesus is a pivotal figure in Christianity just as others like Siddartha Guatama and Mohammed are for the religions founded on them. In this age of worldwide plurality of culture and religion it is all the more pressing for theologians to examine what it is about these figures that makes them such landmarks for religion. Are they just especially gifted, insightful individuals or are they something more? Clearly there may be a difference between the popular, grass roots perception of these religious leaders than that found in professional theology and philosophy. Popular sentiment often comes close to deifying these individuals including praying to them or holding them out as totally unique among humans. However, I think there is a definite distinction to be made between the professional view of Gautama, Mohammed and other so called prophets or enlightened ones versus the status that is most often given to Jesus. This distinction can most aptly be shown with the position that Paul Tillich offers:
The paradox of the Christian message is in one personal life essential manhood has appeared under the conditions of existence without being conquered by them. Systematic Theology II, 94.
Now as I have stated many times I am a great admirer of Tillich’s work but this is where I part company with him. It is this absolute uniqueness of Jesus that is espoused by Christian theology that I view as untenable. But not only is Jesus claimed to be absolutely unique but his life, death, and resurrection are also supposed to be the center of salvation history. The “event” of Jesus is the salvic event of creation. Now I accepted this for many years when I called myself a Christian. I continued to accept this and Tillich’s concept of “New Being” even amidst all the criticisms coming from both inside and outside Christianity over biblical literalism, demythologizing scripture, problems with scientific consilience, etc. I have to admit the criticisms lodged did narrow what I was willing to accept as core to Christianity but it was one particular flash of thought that brought down the house of cards, at least for me.
What I’m about to recount may sound strange to many but I recently read a paper by prominent physicist Paul Davies with similar arguments. Apparently what changed my mind has been on the minds of others as well. The flash of thought that changed my mind about the absolute salvic uniqueness of Jesus came when I pondered the presence of life on other planets. Over the past decade I was extremely impressed with discoveries in biology that showed that even in the most adverse environments life somehow “finds a way”. In almost any environment here on our planet we find life of some sort. From the frozen reaches of the poles to the depths of the sea where tube worms survive in acidic environments without light, life somehow finds a way to be. As more and more incidences of life’s resounding ability to be, came into my knowledge I become more and more convinced that it would be ludicrous to think that there is no other life in the cosmos except here on earth. The last I heard there is an estimated 300 billion galaxies in the universe. Estimates are that galaxies can have from ten million to one trillion stars. So there are an estimated 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. Of course each star could have as many as 0 to many planets. Now when I coupled the number of opportunities for earth like planets with the incredible power of life to emerge, I became convinced that there must be many, many other places in our universe where intelligent life exists. If one thinks about it, as well, as Jody Foster put it in the movie Contact, if there is no one else out there in the universe it seems like an awful waste of space.
Now back to the question of the salvic uniqueness of Jesus. If there are many, many other planets with sentient, intelligent beings out there what about their salvation? Is Jesus also their savior? At that point in my reasoning, it became clear to me that to attribute the salvation of the cosmos to an individual on planet earth was ludicrous. If aliens showed up at our doorstep is that the proclamation we would offer them? I think not.
Now I have asked Christian theologians about this and received some very strange answers. One even said that each planet could have its own savior. If one pursues these lines of theological reasoning things get pretty ridiculous fast. What if I move from one planet to another? Who is my savior? What if I am born and live on an asteroid or space station, which is my savior among the many? The closest? As you can see if there are other sentient, intelligent life forms out there it is not possible to defend the idea that in a man named Jesus of Nazareth “one personal life essential manhood has appeared under the conditions of existence without being conquered by them.” Instead I think Jesus can take his place among the multitudes of individuals in world history who have been remarkably transparent to the divine, each of which, however, embraced the depth of life only fragmentarily. They stand as shining examples and inspirations for us all to plumb the divine depths of our own being and embraces that depth in our living.
Besides Tillich, whom I think you misunderstand on this point, have you investigated how other creative modern theologians tackle this issue? I’m thinking in particular about Karl Rahner’s notion of “Anonymous Christians”. Then there is obviously the pluralistic school of thought, represented by for example John Hick.
I also think that Küng discusses the issue of other worlds rather thoroughly a recent book.
Comment by Patrik —
Patrik,
Some. From what I have read of Rahner’s approach while it does accomodate a sort of universalism based on a relationship with God (and not an avowed faith in Christ), as far as I know it leaves untouched the issue of the unique incarnation here on Earth. Apparently what he says is that those who do not confess Jesus Christ explicitly and do not become members of the Catholic Church, “must have the possibility of a genuine saving relation with God” (Rahner 1993, 54).
The Davies article outlines some of them as well. Perhaps you are right that I have misinterpreted Tillich’s claim. However, I have not seen anything in his systematic theology that addresses the issue of ET. I believe his quote makes it clear that the incarnation occured in a single personal life. However, I reread the Davies article and was surprised to see what Tillich has to say about ET and theology.
Davies:
While I admire Tillich for his courage to make this statement, it would, in my view, create an incredible quagmire for Christian theology. Does this mean that each species in the universe can (an perhaps must) have its own incarnation? Does there have to be just one per planet or habitate? Is the universe absolutely teaming with individuals who have unambiguous being? I can’t even imagine how a systematic theology would address all the questions that would arise. Can a theology for the 3rd millennium fail to address these issues in a systematic way when the appearance of ET on our doorstep or an ET SETI message would send it into shambles? This issue will not go away and I think Christian theologians must address it without solutions that only lead to contrivances.
If find the work of Hick and Borg very promising. However, I am skeptical that Christianity can be morphed to comply with Borg’s revolutionary view or that a consilience can be found according to Hick’s model. I think that history has shown that while traditions can foster adaptations (denominations so to speak), when core principals are jetisoned new religious traditions spring up instead. I have to wonder if Borg’s and Hick’s theologies are examined and explicated in detail to the grass roots churches and even among many Christian theologians if they would still be considered Christians or if people will think they have stripped Christianity of its uniqueness?
I haven’t seen this but if you or someone has I would appreciate a summary of the arguments.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Hi Steve,
I found your post to be both interesting and provocative. However, I am not sure I follow your logic. Are you saying that because there could be other intelligent being somewhere in the universe that their moral/spiritual situation and circumstances are exactly the same as ours? I am not sure I am quite following you here. Maybe you could clarify that a little more. I am very interested in what you thinking is. I am not a professional theologian but I have done some thinking and study in this area. Maybe we could hash out a few ideas. I do agree with you that theologians haven’t done enough thinking here.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
Hi John,
I hadn’t really commented on that but that could also be a strange issue for theology. I’m not sure what you’re driving at but typically in Christianity the “fall” is considered universal. If, however, it is suggested the ET’s on some other planet had not “fallen” then that creates another quagmire. If I move to that planet am I then pure or do I then pollute it? What if I mate with one of the inhabitants and have children? What’s their situation?
As you can see this whole issue of ET’s and Christian soteriology is a horrible mess for systematic theology.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
You wrote, “typically in Christianity the “fall” is considered universal.” What did you mean universal? Universal affecting all life on earth? Universal affecting the whole universe? Or, universal affecting just mankind? We get a different answer depending on from where we start.
Lot of the confusion here I think is caused by the greek word KOSMOS which can have all the above meanings depending on the context. For example when John write in his gospel “For God so loved the world (KOSMOS)…” Is he talking about the entire universe, the planet earth or simply mankind? I would argue that in this instance he is specifically referring to mankind. What do you think?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
John,
When I wrote that I was thinking of humanity. I think that is “typical” of Christian theology. I don’t think that many Christ theologians have grappled with the issue of ET’s. I’m sure there are various theologies that tackle the other questions you pose.
John wouldn’t have had any concept of extraterrestrials or other worlds so I’m sure he was talking about humankind.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
I guess I’m still confused then why you think this is such a problem for what you describe as “typical” theology. I can see it causing a problem for young earth creationists who generally see “the Fall” messing up everything in the universe. Some of them even go so far as to argue that before the Fall there was no death of any kind, even in the animal kingdom. Obviously, all animals had to be vegetarians: not something supported by the evidence in the fossil record. You seem to be suggesting that though alien intelligences were not affected by the human fall they must have necessarily had some kind of moral fall of their own. Am I following your thinking correctly here? Furthermore, I have a problem understanding how humanities fall was in any sense neccessary. It was after all contingent on man’s free moral ability to make moral choices. Certainly, our choices made in the context of our spatial/temporal context do not have any kind of effect on beings living in another spatial/ temporal context in other parts of our universe. Or do they? Their moral circumstances IMO could logically be completely unique. I simply trying to be rigorous with my logic here.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
John,
I’m not suggesting anything about ETs. What I am suggesting is that the notion of a unique human being being the savior is problematic when one considers that there may be millions or billions of other sentient beings out there. The problem is that when one posits some sort of unique salvation event tied to a particular species then how can systematic theology flesh that out when aliens show up on our doorstep?
Are you then suggesting that there are out there humans who are not in a fallen state? If it is a matter of personal freewill then logically there will be individuals who have not fallen.
Ok so how does Christian theology deal with these cultures? Is Christianity irrelevant to them? Do they need their own savior? What if aliens come to live with us and even interbreed? Don’t you see the difficulties of Christian systematic theology?
Comment by Steve Petermann —
C.S Lewis is also worth a read. He has no problem with life on other planets -see his Science Fiction Trilogy. He notes that our views are coloured by a science fiction that paints little green men from Mars as the bad guys -what if aliens (assuming and its a big assume that they do exist) well then, isn’t it possible that they are not fallen and don’t need a saviour.
But what if they did need a saviour? Well
1. God could incarnate himself into their situation and provide salvation to them. He would still be God -and probably it would still be God the Son doing it
2. God’s action in Christ could well be sufficient for aliens -all we are aware of is what he has told us which is that the act is sufficient for us -and indeed included within that is all creation’s redemption so human salvation is not exhaustive in terms of its affects
3. If aliens did come and interbreed then there may well be a precedent in Genesis where the Sons of God intermarry with the Daughters of Man. If that is about angelic interbreeding the Genesis is saying that the offspring for God’s purposes are human (Again it’s a big if)
In short I’m a littled baffled. This seems to be the oddest reason for questioning the uniqueness of Christ. It seems to weaken the debate somewhat -is it intended as a joke
Comment by Dave Williams —
Hi Dave,
Welcome.
My interest is in systematic theology. A systematic theology must be both thoroughgoing and consistent. If it can’t deal with contingencies (ETs out there) in an elegant way then it fails to meet the demands of systematics. Let me offer some more examples.
Let’s suppose that there are aliens out there who have not fallen. So what we would have as intergalactic travel becomes possible cultures with both fallen creatures and those unfallen. Quite an interesting situation wouldn’t you say? One would also think that if there are aliens out there who have not fallen then why can’t there also be humans on earth like that? Are there? Is there something about the planet Earth that caused a universal fall. I thought the Bible said that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Apparently that only applies to the human species on Earth.
Now if an unfallen alien interbreeds with a fallen creature, what does that mean for the child? Is salvation based on genetics or location?
Also Christian theology talks about the second coming of Christ. This is supposes to usher in a new heaven and a new earth. Does this mean that when this happens only the fallen are changed?
I just offer these issues to point out the enormous challenge for Christian theology if there are ETs out there. I realize that others do not see this as a significant challenge, but I think that anyone who is commited to systematics would quickly see the contrivances upon contrivances that would ensue.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Hi Steve,
Thanks for the welcome.
Well there’s a lot to discuss there! Firstly as regards systematic theology. That leads to us considering what it is and where it stems from. Can we do systematic theology in isolation or does it require other theologies to build on. So in Christian Theology Systematic Theology systemises what is drawn out through Biblical Theology which in turn is working with the text and working around a narrative.
Then there is the question of whether or not Systematics does have to be exhaustive in covering every eventuality and if so to what detail.
So there are a whole host of questions that I would want to answer before I even got so far as saying there is a case to answer and I need to include this in my system. Otherwise my system becomes so over laden with things that aren’t required that it destroys its purpose and functionality. I’m sure you will appreciate that as an Engineer. I remember the frustration of designing manufacturing processes and implementing manufacturing systems when someone would say “But what if this happens” and the what if was so far beyond the range of probabilities that it was pointless to design it into the system.
So you’ve built up a number of conditions
1. Do ETs exist
2. In terms of their status in creation are they equivalent to humanity especially morally.
3. If they do exist and are morally equivalent to all creation then are they fallen or is it possible for them to fall
4. If they fall does God have to save them?
5. Is it possible for them to meet and to breed with humans?
So can I build a systematic theology that is ET proof -well yes I could but remember that it will vary depending upon a whole host of what if answers. It’s not impossible it would merely make for a very long book!
So here are some options
1. God hasn’t made aliens -as we define them. We assume that planets are there to support intelligent life because ours does. But there are places in the depths of the ocean that no human eye has seen -maybe there is alternative intelligent life there or maybe there isn’t maybe it is there for other eyes
2. God has made alternative intelligent life to humans. Well actually he has and the Bible calls them angels. Maybe that’s what aliens are -angels. It;s possible, after all people want to interpret them the other way round so often. There is nothing to say that angels don’t inhabit planets within our universe.
3. On this basis the Bible does give us clues to what might happen to other forms of intelligent life. Christ is not the saviour of the fallen angels in Christian Theology. So even if there aliens are different to angels God doesn’t have to save them
4. Important to number 3 is the question of God’s Sovereignty. That then leads into a question about whether aliens might breed with humans -regardless of the scientific possibility (have we interbred with animals yet) then God doesn’t have to allow them to. It is something he can prevent
5. There is the possibility that Genesis outlines what might happen should aliens interbreed with humans if the Sons of God are not human
Note When the Bible says “All have sinned” it means all humanity.
Now what happens when fallen creatures meet unfallen creatures. Well again -that’s described in Christian Theology. The meeting in the Garden of Eden is seen as Satan (fallen) and man unfallen.
So the first question is would these aliens be able to fall. God might not have made them with that capacity. If they were able to fall then they still might not fall. They might be either so repulsed by us or so pitiful of us that the last thing on their mind is either being tempted by us or having sex with us. We have a high view of ourselves if we believe any alien that meets us is going to be automatically “gagging for it”
If they did fall then again you have options. Either God will decalre the act of Atonement on the cross extensive to them or God will declare that the stand condemned and having already sent his son and then a second curse coming they’ve had more than enough revelation and shouldn’t presume on his mercy. Or God could incarnate himself to them and save them.
In setting out these options I wanted to show that what I say next isn’t running away from the question.
I still come back to the belief that Christian Systematic Theology is concerned with the information that God has given us that is neccessary for us to be saved. He doesn’t have to tell us how we will save any other creatures, should they exist and need saving. It isn’t relevant to us. Should there be other creatures out there not under the stewardship of humanity and the affect of their fall then it is for God to reveal to them how and if he will save them. Maybe on Alpha Centuri someone is speculating about if there is life on earth and what God might do to save the inhabitants of this planet?
Sorry for the long answer -but it was a long question :0)
Best regards
Dave
Comment by Dave Williams —
Dave,
Not necessarily. Paul Tillich starts his systematic theology with ontology, not with the Bible. He draws heavily from philosophy in developing the starting points for his theology. He happens to choose the Greek ontology of essense/existence. Tillich thought that the Christian message was an answer to the existential situation. Karl Barth, on the other hand, takes more your position. In truth, however, I think it is impossible to make a strong distinction between where the sources of systematic theology come from. All theologians are immersed in the culture of their day and thus are influenced by past and present thinking, both inside and outside their traditions.
I appreciate that. Many theologians do run away when hard questions are asked.
However, your outline of options raises another issue with systematic theology. Of course, what is you offer is logically possible since as you say God could do anything. However, another element of systematic theology is elegance. My sense is that if a theology must come up with convoluted explanations it will not be that compelling to many. The history of religious thought has shown that systems when faced with challenges who have to come up with all sorts of contrivances failed to survive those that were elegant in their solutions.
Having said that, all power to you in attempting to meet the challenge. Whether or not your answers would find any support among professional theologians I do not know but I suspect not. But that’s just me.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
Thanks for your response. Thanks also for pre-empting me and explaining what you meant by elegance. I was going to ask what you meant by that and how you avoided that being a subjective decision. I’m happy with your concern to avoid convoluted explanations but we have to be careful too that this is not a product of how we set the question. After all I’m sure it is not beyond the wit of man to set it a question that it is nigh on impossible to answer elegantly and before you know it, a thousand angels are dancing on a pin head before your eyes.
I guess it would be better to say that Christian Theology “Should” rather than “does” start with the Bible. It’s the historic position when you turn to Augustine, Anselm, Luther, Calvin etc. From that score it may sound quite dogmatic but I would wonder whether Tillich can be considered “good theology” in so far as it is “Christian theology” -that is not to question his intellect or his skills as a philosopher.
Whether or not my views would find any support among professional theologians? Most of the ones I know would probably say something along the lines that I’m saying -that you are stepping into the field of “Speculation” and so there are plenty of what ifs. At the same time they would also see that behind the question are some more immediate questions about how the fall affects creation and so what happens to all creation through the atonement, what of those who haven’t heard the gospel. What about the fate of angels (something Anselm certainly bothered about!). Maybe I can ask a few over lunch
)
Comment by Dave Williams —
Steve,
You said:
“Are you then suggesting that there are out there humans who are not in a fallen state? If it is a matter of personal freewill then logically there will be individuals who have not fallen.”
To clarify my position, I was suggesting that it is logically possible that there are E.T. races out there that are unfallen and therefore unaffected by sin. This is something that C.S. Lewis explores in his novel, Peralandra, where a Venusian Eve is able to resist temptation with the help of an earthling (Ransom) who knows the dire consequences. Lewis actually explores another option in his first novel, Out of the Silent Planet, where his hero Ransom encounters intelligent beings who are good and happy but incapable of immorality. As far as the possibilty that an earthling could be without sin? That’s exactly what the Bible teaches about Jesus who like us was tempted but chose not to participate in the Fall. My argument then is that man’s “fall” is unique to mankind and that there are other logical possibilities open to God for other worlds and other beings. It is, therefore, logically conceivable that our moral situation is never duplicated any where else in the history of the universe.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
Dave,
I surmise from your comment about asking professional theologians at lunch that you are either an academic theologian or a theology student. If so that’s great! However, I think the question that young theologians need to ask themselves is whether they are first a theologian, per se, or first a Christian theologian? This is particularly pertinent today because of the religious pluralism that is spreading throughout the globe. If Christianity is to be an answering theology in this climate it must be able to defend its approach without circular reference to the tradition itself or the Bible. To quote scripture as the basis for Christian truth is circular and will not be considered valid by those outside the tradition. If, however, theologians from the varying traditions can come to an agreement concerning the structure of the human and cosmic condition then the answers provided by each tradition can be evaluated.
If a theologian is a theologian, per se, first that creates a much broader set of issues to deal with. It means first of all that the theological process must begin without some a priori commitment to a particular tradition. That does not mean, however, that what the traditions have to say are irrelevant. To the contrary, but it does mean is trying to establish first principals in the theology by examining the full range of human thought regarding the nature of reality and humanity’s place in it. It also means, in my view, exploring the full range of human experience that has lead to theological foundations. Although Tillich was a Christian theologian, he started his systematic theology by trying to understand the existential situation. In his method of correlation the first thing to do is understand the existential situation and then discover what answers were provided by the tradition. As far as the status of Tillich’s theology as a good Christian theology he is considered one of the premier Christian theologians of the 20th century.
Looking forward to their reponses.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
John,
Are you then saying that Jesus need not be unique in this respect?
The problem I see with this is that it seems to posit that being fallen is somehow dependent on DNA (species) or some spatial location (Earth). Otherwise you are left with accepting that there can also be, in fact, unfallen creatures on Earth and therefore that Jesus was not a unique individual.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
Yes -I’m currently studying theology after a few years as the amateur -but hopefully not armchair sort!
You said that it was circular for Christian Theologians to argue from the Bible. I have to say that quite the opposite is true! Pluralism raises questions about truth and authority. If I cannot start with the Bible as authority then I’m in a difficult position. I have accepted the default that there isn’t an ultimate authority outside of humanity and so I’m not offering a theology for modernists or post modernists that will give them anything different. Indeed I am in the arrogant position of claiming ultimate authority for myself.
A random group of people today answered the question about aliens pretty much along the same lines as I did by the way
Comment by Dave Williams —
Dave,
No what I said was that arguments for the truth of the Bible by using the Bible itself are circular. For example quoting passages that the Bible is the inspired word of God as proof that it is, is circular. In order for an argument to be sound, a claim that the Bible is the truth must come from something else, like an intuitive sense or claiming to be grasped by the Spirit. Granted those can never be considered “proofs” but they are still sound arguments. Whether or not they are compelling is another question.
In order to have an apologetic for Christianity in a pluralistic environment one must have an argument for why the Bible is authoritative overagainst other scriptures. What would that argument be?
Actually I agree with you that there is no ultimate objective authority for adjudicating the question of truth in religion. There will always be the element of subjectivity in theology. That is why I have always used the term “compelling” to describe the viability of a theological system. It is my belief that the divine spark which is in all of use does the adjudication. It may not be perfect but the history of theology has shown that there has been progress. That progress has occured as noncompelling theological and religious systems have fallen by the wayside. In religion, animism, polytheism, and many folk religions have gone out of favor as cultures matured and developed new worldviews that made those systems loose their appeal.
I guess I’m not surprised. My sense is that your university has a theologically conservative leaning. In order to get a true sense of how systematic your ideas are it would be necessary to float them before moderate or liberal theologians as well.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
“I guess I’m not surprised. My sense is that your university has a theologically conservative leaning. In order to get a true sense of how systematic your ideas are it would be necessary to float them before moderate or liberal theologians as well.”
That’s changing the rules of the game somewhat!! You wanted professional theologians but now they are not good enough if they don’t fit another defintion. Of course I will disagree with liberal theologians -but that doesn’t mean that my views are either unsystematic or wrong. It means that they are different to others! Others that I have chosen to disagree with!
As far as the Biblical circular argument goes your comment was as follows
“If Christianity is to be an answering theology in this climate it must be able to defend its approach without circular reference to the tradition itself or the Bible. To quote scripture as the basis for Christian truth is circular and will not be considered valid by those outside the tradition.”
Clearly the question was about wider Christian truth not only the Bible. But either way, my comment still stands. The Bible must be my authority for saying it is God’s word because I claim no other authority. Where else is the authority going to come from. Let me put it straight -what is your higher authority? How do you decide what is truth?
Comment by Dave Williams —
Dave,
No, I think the theologians you met are a good data point. However, I’m of the opinion that any good theologian must be in dialog and argument with those who are outside their circle. I have always thought that the best place to hone one’s arguments was to set up camp with the “enemy”.
My higher authority is the divine presence in life. What this means is that God is present in the cosmos and in one’s self. Accordingly we all participate in the being of God and knowledge is always in a unity of being and knowing. I am a firm proponent of natural theology. In my view what is called special revelation stems from this participate in the divine life where we recognize and come to understand something about God. I call this an informed intuition. It is intuitive in the sense that our knowledge of God comes from a religious gestalt, a sense of relality in its depth. However, as we all know intuitions can be wrong. That is why they need to be informed by all of our experiences and knowlege we attain both in our own experiences and those of others who have passed them down. This is why scriptures are so important. They represent the record of informed intuitions of the past and can inform our “sensus divinitatus”, sense of the divine as Calvin called it.
Now this type of religious knowledge does not claim the kind of certainty that many feel scripture offers. That sense of certainty is, in my view, mistaken. One has only to look at the history of religion to see that there is an evolution of religious thought where some elements of the old are retained and some are discarded. This does not mean that one cannot act on those informed intuitions. To the contrary. As the divine presence “convicts” us into what to believe we are compelled to act on those beliefs. We do so, however, in a faithing fallibilism. As Luther said, “Sin boldly, yet more boldly still believe”.
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve, you said:
“The problem I see with this is that it seems to posit that being fallen is somehow dependent on DNA (species) or some spatial location (Earth). Otherwise you are left with accepting that there can also be, in fact, unfallen creatures on Earth and therefore that Jesus was not a unique individual. ”
I’m not quite sure that I follow your logic here. Jesus came to die for man and mankind, not dolphins and gorillas. Paul’s argument in Romans chapt. 5 seems to make this point very clearly. Jesus was unique in that he was both human and divine; fully God and fully Man. As a man he was also subject to temptation. This is made clear in Heb. 4:14 where the writer says: “…we do not have a high priest (Jesus) who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but on who was tempted in every way just as we are– yet was without sin.” That seems to be saying that in his human nature Jesus face genuine temptation. Afterall, how can one be tempted unless one is really tempted? On the other hand how could a holy God be tempted by sin? Here we have entered the deep,deep waters of Christian theology… The term “paradox” was probably coined to describe problems like this.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
John,
My question about DNA was because of your suggestion that ET’s didn’t necessary fall. That raises the question of why not. Is fallenness related to the the species? Is it related to the place they are located? Or is it related to an individual decision. If it is an individual decision then there should be unfallen humans on Earth. If fallenness is related to a group of creatures what is it about that group that makes them fallen?
Comment by Steve Petermann —
Steve,
I have a problem seeing something like man’s fall in any sense being logically necessary. To paraphrase Alvin Plantinga: ‘A necessary event is one that occurs in every possible world(or situation)…a contingent event only occurs in some possible worlds.’ 5 + 7=12, 13 is a prime number, all bachelors are unmarried, ae examples of some of the kind of things that are necessarily true. That all intelligent being are are moral beings who have “fallen” into an immoral state is not something I think can be
shown to be logically necessary and therefore necessarily true. Afterall, I can conceive of Spock-like beings whose thinking is governed by the rules of pure logic. Are you suggesting that the Creator of the universe can’t be creative about the kind of beings that he decide to create?
I’m sure that he is much more creative than me or some Hollywood script writers.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
Steve,
I would argue on the basis of a Biblically based theology that we are “fallen” because we have made individual decisions to act sinfully and selfishly, or cruelly. While it is true that Paul argues in Rom. 5 that all have sinned because of Adam introducing sin into the world the Bible makes it clear in other passages that we will be judged for our personal sins, not because we are descencents of Adam. So are there unfallen humans historically or living currently? I remember having this discussion 20+ years ago when I was attending seminary. I remember that the consensus that was reached, by both students and professors, in the group was that there were 2 ways of being saved: (1)having never sinned, (2)having our sins forgiven by God in an act of mercy and grace. So theoretically I believe it is possible for there to be an unfallen human but not practically possible. Why? Because we are not simply individuals but social beings who are influenced both positively and negatively by other individuals. Is it impossible? As I said before it can’t be impossible, at least in the Bibilical sense, because the NT claims that Jesus, who was fully human, was without sin.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER —
hello. i am visiting here via mike gene’s design matrix website. what i find usually in ID discussion is a complete lack of mention of hinduism. is this a western self deceit? i am western and i know about krishna. after tackling all the questions concerning jesus, buddha and muhammed, you still have to deal with krishna! one of the paragraphs above mentioned something having “a different saviour for every planet” ,of course, it doesn’t make sense. however krishna has an answer in the bagavad gita, which goes “”When goodness grows weak, When evil increases,
I make myself a body. In every age I come back To deliver the holy, To destroy the sin of the sinner,To establish righteousness.” —— Bhagavad Gita”
Comment by steve tariske —
Hi Steve,
There probably is some arrogance about Western ideas but I also think that Westerners just don’t know much about Hinduism. Part of the problem is that it is so diverse, with many sects and ideas. However, I think Weserners would be well served to spend some time studying the Eastern religions. There is so much wisdom there!
I think there is a major difference between Jesus and Krishna. The incarnation of Jesus is in most of the traditions a one time unique event. As you mentioned Krishna becomes incarnate many times wherever needed. To me this is a metaphor for the presence of God in all things. There are, however, beings, objects, places, etc. that are especially transparent to the divine and could be considered special “incarnations”. I have to admit I am not well versed in the details of Hinduism so I don’t know if they take this statement about Krishna as literal but I would not. As I said, I think it represents a deeper meaning about the presence of God in all things and in some things very powerfully.
Comment by Steve Petermann —