Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: shallenb@news.colorado.edu (Nualle) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Extraterrestrials and human religion Message-ID: Date: 5 May 91 04:43:18 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder Lines: 113 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu ac3p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Alison R. Carter) writes: >I find it disappointing >that the posters on this board have been so nearsighted as to converse >in local, terrestrial human religious matters rather than address this >rather uncomfortable issue. Actually, fun as the subject is, we haven't got enough information to make it profitable to discuss extraterrestrial theology (whether that means alien life on other planets or demons (another subject current on this board.)) IMHO, it would be presumtuous of us to try. We haven't got ourselves figured out; how are we to approach alien psyches and souls? >My view is this, and is completely out of league with any beliefs in the >original creation: We evolved independently as a planet within the life >zone of our sun, and if it happened to us, it can happen many times over >in a universe of a billion galaxies and over a thousand trillion stars. That is your view and you have a perfect right to it. Know, though, that your view is based in scientific theory, not in any proven facts. For myself -- I withhold judgment. I am a musician, not a scientist, so my view in this matter is unlikely to affect much of anybody. On the other hand, I am content to claim ignorance rather than hold a belief I will likely have to amend later. >So how can a religion created by a straggling group of shepherds, just >past the step of evolving from animal to sentient, possibly sum up the >whole of creation? Who said they created it? THEY certainly didn't say they created it! But when you think about it, what interest would a bunch of shepherds have in the whole of creation? Why would they bother specifying that their god is all the huge things they claim. Their surrounding religions didn't claim such things. Nomadic peoples tended to have rather narrow-scoped, tribal gods. The very fact of the Habiru god's oddness in the culture makes it worth a second look -- at least to an anthropologist. >All human religions have something in common because we are all human. >We have two eyes, two arms, two legs, a sex drive, and the sky is blue, >rain is wet, grass is green, there's a sun and a moon. Therefore, human >religion is strictly human. Whoa, there!! You've made a quantum leap in assumptions. I'll give you that all human religions have something in common, by the fact that all religious folk (that we have dealt with) are humans. But the whole point of just about any religion is to address those things in life which are not strictly human. Why even bother with religion if being what comes naturally were enough? (And ask any conscientious religious person -- it *is* a bother.) >Could it possibly be that all the applications of Christianity will >apply to other, possibly completely different, intelligences? If they >reproduce asexually, or if they are docile by nature, or if they are >pure intelligence with only marignal material existence, how can it be >that they could be governed by the same jealous god that made Adam and >Eve as his first creation, or that the same god needs to send the same >son to the whole of the universe in different forms to tell any of them >what to do? We are the humans. We are animal, violent, greedy >creatures just out of our embryonic evolutionary stage. To assume that >the rest of the universe worships the same god of humanity is assuming a >lot. You've brought up a number of things here, but I don't think they can be fairly separated into sections, so I'll try responding backwards. 1) Yahweh is the god of humanity to humans. If tribbles existed and were sentient and spiritual, Yahweh would be the god of tribbles to tribbles. 2) How Yahweh would manifest to tribbles is Their own affair. If it became necessary, Yeshua would become a tribble. Or, perhaps, Yeshua's actions as a human would be sufficient for tribble need as well. >And why, if Christianity is the only correct religion, would such a god >reveal itself to one filthy human desert tribe whilst the rest of >civilization supposedly falls to spiritual ruin by creating their own >"false, untrue" religions e.g. hinduism, Egyptian religion, Assyrian >religion, and the scores of separate tribal beliefs that evolved in >North America and Africa? Well, you managed to hear about God. I assume you are not a member of said filthy human desert tribe. Would giving revelation instead to the ancient Greeks have satisfied you better? (Oh wait -- Paul said God did reveal Themselves to the ancient Greeks, at least partially) As for how God will deal with believers in other faiths, my only answer is that They will deal with them the same way They deal with christians: individually, one-by-one. My God is a person of unspeakably passionate love toward every creature -- and especially every human. For a little more on that, see my post about Hell. >I have a feeling that god is not male or female, nor is it partial to >any race of evolved beings, it is immaterial, and incapable of >omnipotence by itself or sentience. It cannot father children or issue >commands. I seem to see that god, in itself, or spirit, is simply the >high power that we are just learning to tap into and use as sentients >just newly capable of reaching into the realm of the emotional and >spiritual plane. I have faith that God is neither male nor female, nor are They partial to any race of beings to the detriment or negligence of other races. They are Themselves immaterial, because They transcend the limitations that material form would impose. They cannot father children, but They can create living creatures and the subsequent relationship can rightfully be compared to that between father and child. I have faith that God is not me, and is not to be found inside my psyche, except in poor reflection. I believe that if we humans are evolving (and I find the idea entirely possible), that we aren't finished. We certainly haven't reached the limit of our potential. On the other hand, if we are not evolving (and I find that idea equally possible), then we don't need to and God can deal with us just fine as we are. >The Darwin's advocate No-one's advocate but my own -Nualle