From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 16:24:46 EDT
Dr. Nelson wrote:
> I did anything but merely pass off your questions, but
> tried (apparently not to your satisfaction) to address
> all of them.
Okay. Here goes: In what follows I'm assuming that there is some *concrete*
salvic benefit incurred by the incarnation of the second person of the
trinity, life, death and resurrection of Jesus here on earth. I'm also
assuming that it would rather arrogant of us to assume that the salvation of
all ET's everywhere were dependent on what happened on this planet. So, if
there turns out to be ET's out there:
1) Is another incarnation, life, death and resurrection of the second person
of the trinity necessary for their salvation? Or at least an incarnation at
some point in the planet's history?
2) Is there a limited scope to any particular salvic scheme? Country?
World? Solar system? Galaxy?
3) If I move from one planet to another, am I covered by the salvic scheme
of my previous planet or the new one?
4) If there can be different salvic schemes on different planets does that
mean that there can be different salvic schemes on this planet as well, say
by another religion in another part of the world or can there only be one
salvic scheme per planet?
5) Assuming that ET's may be very different than us, is salvation species
specific? In other words if there are more than one sentient species on a
planet, does the second person of the trinity have to incarnate in each?
That should be enough. I know it sounds like I'm just trying to be
obnoxious but that's not it at all. It was around this very issue that I
came to reject the "concrete" idea of the Christ. That does not, however,
mean I reject the symbol of the incarnation, cross and resurrection. Can
Christianity survive without a concrete Christ?
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Blake Nelson" <bnelson301@yahoo.com>
To: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>; "Ted Davis"
<TDavis@messiah.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: C.S. Lewis on ETs and theology
> Steve,
>
> I did anything but merely pass off your questions, but
> tried (apparently not to your satisfaction) to address
> all of them.
>
> In one of several lengthy responses, I asked for your
> assistance in defining your concerns by posing
> questions which I did not get a reply to as the focus
> shifted from ETs to the supernatural.
>
> The brief discussion of ETs makes it pretty clear that
> they pose no theological problems for christianity.
>
> At the end of the day in our discussion, it appeared
> your concern was with the supernatural rather than
> ETs. As I tried to point out, "supernatural" involves
> a lot of definitional issues, and you didn't bother to
> provide your definition of supernatural. What you did
> suggest was that you meant essenitally something out
> of the ordinary person's experience -- but that covers
> a vast array of phenomena that are clearly not
> considered supernatural in any sense. Anyway, if you
> want to discuss the particulars, that might be
> fruitful, but I hardly think the responses to your
> question about ETs were merely passing them off.
>
>
> --- Steve Petermann <steve@spetermann.org> wrote:
> > > "If we discover other bodies, they must be
> > habitable or uninhabitable: and
> > > the odd thing is that both these hypotheses are
> > used as grounds for
> > > rejecting Christianity. If the universe is teeming
> > with life, this, we are
> > > told, reduces to absurdity the Christian claim--or
> > what is thought to be
> > > the
> > > Christian claim--that man is unique, and the
> > Christian doctrine that to
> > > this
> > > one planet God came down and was incarnate for us
> > men and our salvation.
> > > If, on the other hand, the earth is really unique,
> > then that proves that
> > > life is only an accidental by-product in the
> > universe, and so again
> > > disproves our religion. Really, we are hard to
> > please."
> >
> >
> > But shouldn't we be hard to please? Did Lewis do a
> > detailed systematics on
> > the question? Is systematics only for fleshing out
> > the stuff that poses no
> > real foundational challenge? I posed a few questions
> > that no one addressed,
> > passing them off as scholastic gymnastics. Seems to
> > me that Christianity
> > can't afford to hold positions that can be so easily
> > shaken by the SETI
> > group getting a message next week. (Anyone see
> > _Contact_). Of course it may
> > never happen but since it reasonably could and
> > reasonable people would like
> > to know Christianity's response, can it make a
> > compelling case?
> >
> > Steve Petermann
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
> > To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 1:42 PM
> > Subject: C.S. Lewis on ETs and theology
> >
> >
> > > Several recent posts have dealt with the question
> > of ETs in relation to
> > > Christian doctrine. Someone not on our list
> > called attention to the
> > > following passage from C.S. Lewis, in just this
> > connection. I offer it
> > here
> > > with no further comment.
> > >
> > > ted
> > >
> > >
> > > C.S. Lewis, "Dogma and the Universe," in The
> > Grand Miracle and Other
> > > Essays on Theology and Ethics from 'God in the
> > Dock,' ed. by W. Hooper
> > > (New York: Ballantine Books, 1990), p. 14:
> > >
> > > "If we discover other bodies, they must be
> > habitable or uninhabitable: and
> > > the odd thing is that both these hypotheses are
> > used as grounds for
> > > rejecting Christianity. If the universe is teeming
> > with life, this, we are
> > > told, reduces to absurdity the Christian claim--or
> > what is thought to be
> > > the
> > > Christian claim--that man is unique, and the
> > Christian doctrine that to
> > > this
> > > one planet God came down and was incarnate for us
> > men and our salvation.
> > > If, on the other hand, the earth is really unique,
> > then that proves that
> > > life is only an accidental by-product in the
> > universe, and so again
> > > disproves our religion. Really, we are hard to
> > please."
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 16:27:44 EDT