While discussing the attributes of God, we came to realize that many of the things we call God are simply extensions of ourselves. We can only know God through that which we already know, and the only thing we know (and that which we know best) is ourselves. Therefore, when we call God just, wise, and merciful, it is only because we think of those attributes as good things, and we make God what we want to.
This is just to give you a very brief background to why I began thinking of these terms. If there was one way that people would like to describe God, or if there was only one word that could capture him (it), what would it be? The omni words (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) get too many people in trouble (the paradox of the rock too heavy for God to lift, for example, or any discussion as to God's foresight/determinism). One of the most popular words used to describe God is "good." God is good, right? I think that it is safe to say that most if not all (I would lean towards all) Christians (those whom I primarily address in general) would agree that God is good. Before I go any further, I must ask in brief what it means to be good.
One way to define "good" is "Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing." For example, I have heard bad jokes, and I have heard good jokes. I have seen bad artwork, and I have seen good artwork. But I may call one painting bad, when someone else would call it good. Which one of us is right? The obvious answer is neither. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? So if goodness is equated with beauty in art, then it would really be impossible to call something objectively good. Some jokes might make me laugh, and my friend yawn. What would make a good joke? There's no way to define a good joke. A good joke is only a good joke so far as it makes the intended audience amused. Is there anything that can be objectively good, then? Can there be anything that is good in a way that anybody could look at it and say that it was good? Goodness only exists as far as we believe it to be good. Calling something good actually says more about the one who describes the object as such than the object itself. If my favorite movies are Die Hard, Crank, The Punisher, and The Matrix, then that does not mean that those four movies are the best movies made, but it does say that I love action movies. If my friend's favorite movie is What Dreams May Come, that does in no way make that movie the best. It only means that my friend is a philosophical romantic. Good is so subjective that it appears that it is impossible for something to be objectively good by its own merit.
A second problem with using this definition of "good" is that it is not only completely subjective, but it is also comparative. What I mean, is that in the above examples of jokes, movies, and artwork, to call any one of them "good" is only when observed as one of many examples. If there only existed one painting in the world, then would it be good? It would be impossible to say. Aside from the fact that some people may like it or not, it would be impossible to realize whether or not the work was good. I think that Dream Theater's sixth album is good, but would I think that if the only music I had ever heard in my life was Beethoven's 5th? It may be easier to visualize this by using the adjective "tall."
Shaquille Oneil is tall.
The Empire State building is tall.
Everyone would agree that Shaq is tall, because what we are really saying is "Shaq is tall compared to most people." The Empire State building is tall, but we are really saying that the Empire State building is tall compared to other buildings. The word "good" as defined above is the same way. Therefore, it would be impossible to call God "good" unless we had other deities to compare him to. We could say "Zeus is alright, Baal is bad, but God is good." I would only know a good song because I've heard so many bad ones. If God is the only deity, then can we really call him good? It appears that we must modify our definition of "good" in order to clear up this mess. I will therefore offer another way of defining "good," and I believe this way to be the closer to how Christians would intend the word to be defined when God is the object.
The second way to think of "good" is in the way that you may call someone a "good person." You do not mean that they are a good person because they are stronger than others, or better looking, or have a fuller head of hair, but you mean that they are kind, generous, merciful, loving, friendly, cheerful, nice, etc. I think everyone can understand this way of thinking of "good" without further explanation. However, I must point something out. This definition of "good" is only relational. I will substitute the word "nice" for the word "good." "John is a kind man." This means that John is kind to other people. It means that when John is around other people, he is kind to them. Would we call John kind if he didn't slam his refrigerator in order to not disturb the food? Well, of course not. That has nothing to do with him being kind, because we define "kind" in relational senses. Can John be kind if he is locked in his house with no human contact? He wouldn't be unkind, but he would neither be kind. If someone is "polite," it means that when they are talking to other people, they say "please" and "thank you." It is impossible to be polite when there is no one to be polite to. So in this way we see the word "good."
We say that God is good because we apply our human concepts to him. We humans are kind some of the time. The best people (with the most "good" in them) are kind more than the worse people. God, therefore, must be the farthest extreme of kind that there could be. He must be more kind than any human can possibly imagine. I could love my family and friends, and this might be a good thing, so God must be capable of love, because he must be greater than me, and love is supposedly a good thing, so God must have it but in greater abundance. So it is with "good." God must be good because we see ourselves as good (on a "good" day).
The problem returns, however, in that this definition of "good" is only valid when there is a receiver of the good. Just as John was kind only because there were people to be kind to, so is God good because he is good to us. Christians may say that God is good because he loves us, cares for us, and watches over us. What then, I ask, would he be if he did not love us, did not care about us, and was altogether apathetic to our existence? Would we still call him good? Probably not. We may call him great and powerful, but we would not call him "good." Then is God really objectively good? If God is only good so far as he is good to us, then was God good before we were created? Before there existed anybody to be good to, could it be possible that God was "good" at all? If goodness is defined in relational terms and God is good only so far as he is good to us, then it would appear to be correct to say that Good was not good before there was anybody to recognize him. Is this objective goodness? I do not believe that it is.
It appears to me that at the very most, we can say that God is good to us. But even in that statement, no objectivity exists. If you asked your friend to buy you a drink because you were thirsty and he did, you may think he was good, while the next person who asks and gets denied will not think the same. You, however, did not know that he has said no to 9 other people before he said yes to you. Is he really all that generous then? He would be to you because of your ignorance. In this way, even if we say that God is good to us, we could not be saying anything beyond that as to the nature of God. We cannot speak of the objective goodness of God, because we would only be introducing a paradox. We can only project subjective and relative goodness on God in our ignorance.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The God of the Universe
It has been brought to my attention recently through discussion of faith and science that if there existed extra-terrestrial life, the foundations of Christianity would be shaken, and to some people, broken. I would therefore like to examine the consequences of such a discovery.
First I should say that I believe it is very likely that sentient life forms exist elsewhere in the universe. The universe is far too large and far too old for us to be the only intelligent creatures that exist. As it has been said, that would be an awfully big waste of space. I am not an astrologist nor biologist nor chemist nor astrophysicist, but when I imagine the earth, a tiny planet in a tiny solar system sitting on the edge of one of countless galaxies in our enormous universe, I see a great possibility that there is (or was at one time) intelligent, conscious life somewhere in the vastness of space.
What would that say about God?
I believe that it would only go to show how magnificent and glorious a creator our God is that he could plant the seeds of life all over the universe. Why did he make man? Assuming that he did, then I think the bigger question should be why did he make only man? My answer is that he would not have necessarily had to have only created man. Just as he created the deer, the elephant, the squirrel, and the tiger, so too could he have created elsewhere a creature that would not only live, but look back to him in wonder, and search for their creator. Would it make God "love" us any less? (I put "love" in parentheses to recognize the very human term we apply to a being without body, hormones, or instincts. It is not now the place to discuss the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of how we talk about God). I think not. Does it make you think that God loves us less when we see that there are more people in the world than we thought? If there was discovered an island in the Pacific Ocean that had been cut off from the rest of the world for centuries and found that there were humans living there quite comfortably, would we be upset that there were that many more people on the planet that God had to divide his love and attention among? Not at all! If anything, we should be happy and glad that there are more human beings capable of searching for God and living in fellowship with us. The existence of ETI (Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) does not take away from how much God cares for humans. How limiting would that be, if it did? Do we not think that God is really wrapped up in our own worldly affairs? Isn't it the case that we like to imagine God as living within our own atmosphere? It is easier to imagine an Ozone God that cares about everybody than it is to recognize the truth that God sees the farthest star in the farthest galaxy just as clearly as he sees any sparrows falling in the United States. Therefore, I challenge the theology of anyone who would believe that God could not love us as much if ETI existed.
The effect on our theology of God, however, is not what I really wish to discuss. It is the triune God of mainstream Christianity that I wish to question, more specifically, the being of the Son, Jesus the Christ, the supposed fulfillment of Jewish prophecy regarding a Messiah, the savior of the world, one who has been sent from the father God the Creator to die on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind who forsake the God that created them and worshiped the created instead of the creator. What would be the effect of this second person of the Trinity if ETI was ever discovered?
First of all, one must start at the beginning. Allow me to examine the story of human history. Although I believe human history began thousands and thousands of years ago, I will humor the creationists in brief. Adam and Eve, the first human beings on the planet, were created immortal, without death or sin. The serpent then tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, and Adam ate after her, and humanity has been in sin ever since. God then called Abram some time after the flood (in which God wiped out all of mankind save Noah and his family), established a covenant with him, and has since updated the covenant with Moses leading the Israelite sons of Jacob out of their bondage in Egypt into the desert where he established the law before allowing the next generation of people to enter the promised land and slaughter everyone they could find. Since then the Israelites have had a few kings, some good, some bad, but overall they have faired pretty poorly as far as holding up their end of the covenant with God, and so out of divine punishment, they were exiled out of their promised land into the Babylonian east where they struggled to rediscover their identity as a people without their temple or divinely given land. Eventually their prophets began speaking of a day when God would restore balance and judge the nations, exalting the Israelites as his chosen people once again. This day would be heralded by God's chosen Messiah, or Anointed one; a king who would lead the people to victory and national independence once again. As Cyrus freed the slaves of the kingdoms he conquered, he became the Messiah of the Jews in allowing them to return back to their homeland and rebuild their cities. All was not well in the faith, however, as within a couple centuries they were persecuted and sought out to be slaughtered as a people and they dreamed again of a day when God would right the wrongs done to them, if not in this life then in the next. A few centuries more and the Maccabean Revolt gained independence for Israel, if only for a short while, before they were again occupied by the Romans until a man Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary arrived on the scene. This man was the son of God (whatever that means) and as was later interpreted, God himself in the flesh. The incarnation of the Creator came to earth in the form of a human in Jesus in order to die as the atoning sacrifice for all the sins of the world since Eve bit the apple. The new covenant in Jesus the Christ (Greek for Messiah) was eternal life for all who believed that Jesus the son of god had come in the flesh to die for the sins of the world.
This brings us up to date with Christianity.
Given all of the above, if there was intelligent life on another planet somewhere in the universe, then one would have to ask, did they have an Eden? I for one do not believe that Genesis 1-3 is to be read literally, but if it was, then when God created the first humans, he created them naked, unashamed, in a garden where they had access to eternal life. Why then, we can suppose, wouldn't God also create any other sentient being in a garden of perfection? And would they be made in the image of God as well? Although I do not believe in the literal existence of Eden, Adam, or Eve, I do believe the theology of Genesis in that we are created by God in his image. This Image of God, in my opinion, is what separates us from the animals. We are sentient, self conscious beings that have ever searched for our creator. In this way, I believe that any other sentient extra terrestrial intelligence must, by the very definition of them as such, be created in God's image as well. I do not see any theological problems with this, unless one wants to believe that humans are made physically in the image of God, but I do not believe this is a widespread belief amongst Christians (nor do I hold this belief).
To go back to the question of Eden, one must wonder...If God created this alien species in his image just as we ourselves are, then would he have created a paradise for them as well? And if he did, then was there also a tempter in that paradise? And if so, then although we failed here on earth, could they have not? Could it be possible that other creations did not eat the fruit of the forbidden tree (or whatever other edible object they may have on their planet)? This is, of course, assuming that these other species eat (can one imagine God forbidding the absorption of a specific gas?). Taking aside all of these uncertainties, the question still remains, did they fail? Whatever God forbade them to do, did they, like us, fail and allow sin and death to enter their world?
I must take a step back and say again that I am not endorsing the literal interpretation of the Eden narrative, but examining the implications of doing so. Personally, I do not believe that sin came into humanity by the eating of any mystical plant, but that sin is the selfishness that humans have in them. The desire to elevate the self above all others is our sin, not an inherited disease from the first human. We are all born into innocence, and we all reach an age where our focus turns to ourselves, and the sins are how we act (physically or mentally) to feed this desire to elevate ourselves. I believe that any alien intelligence would have this same "sin." I believe that any population in the universe would struggle amongst themselves with the problem of egocentricity. But I am addressing the problems in taking the Eden narrative literally and projecting it onto another planet.
To diverge yet again on a more abstract thought, I must mention the fact that much theology has been done to attempt to explain whether or not God knew Adam and Eve would sin. Did God not know they were going to sin? In which case he had to send his son (who would have supposedly existed at Creation) to die for us as a backup (Jesus as Plan B)? Or did God know we were going to sin and know that he would have to send his son from the start to save us (Jesus as Plan A)? Or, did God already know that he was going to glorify his son, and if all actions in the universe are caused by God, did Eve even have a choice not to eat the forbidden fruit? Were Adam and Eve (and all of humanity) just pawns in God's plan to glorify his son? If God didn't know that humanity would fail, then, aside from the theological issues brought up by the suggestion that God does not know the future, does that imply that alien creatures didn't fail? Or had they all failed, and God tried again with humans and we are just one of the many failures that God has created? Or, if God had planned on the failure of his creation, then one would wonder why he kept creating them. Maybe one of these millennia God would skip the creation of the tempter.
However one interprets the Eden narrative, one way or another I must confess my belief that we are a broken species. We do sin, and however one believes that we obtained that sin, the fact remains that we have it (although hopefully you can see all the problems that would arise if we take Genesis literally). What then would Jesus mean? If Jesus was sent to earth because of our sin, then unless alien civilizations had no sin (which I do not believe), then wouldn't they need a savior too? So would the Son have been sent to other planets to die for them too? In which case, when Jesus came to earth, was it really the first time that he had done something like that? Or has he gone to other planets and taught his message, then been betrayed (as part of God's interstellar plan) and sentenced to a horrible death on every planet that contains life in the universe? Or to take a step behind that, did Judaism exist on these other planets? Did God establish a covenant before he sent his Son? Was the coming of the Son foretold? Did he fulfill alien Scripture? If all of these answers are "Yes," then Jesus must have been awfully tired.
But wait! There is yet another problem. If Jesus had died for every civilization, then was there also a resurrection on every planet? Most Christians would believe that without the resurrection, Christianity ceases to be. One cannot be a Christian without the Resurrection. Then what would it mean if the Son had already been resurrected? This would make no sense. Supposedly, when he was resurrected, he still had his human body. He still bore the holes in his hands and feet, and his wound in his side. If the Son retains his wounds even in the afterlife, then wouldn't he also have to retain his physical appearance? In which case, would he have had to have been some type of shape shifter that could change into any alien species? Would he have had to hide the scars from every other time that he had been killed? Or perhaps, did he only retain his physical body until the ascension? Then what happened to his body? Did it vaporize? How many bodies could the Son have had? Millions? Supposedly when Jesus returns in the Parousia he will still have his human body. Does this mean that he is returning to the other planets as well? Does this mean that he's going to have to change his bodily appearance every time God decides to end the world? Or will God end the universe all at once and Jesus will somehow ride in on his white horse (or whatever other alien creature he may be riding) at every planet at the same time?
If we wish to erase this dilemna of time and space in dealing with the Son, then maybe God just had more than one Son. This solves our problem, right? God is the father of all planets, but then there was a savior for each individual planet, and so God really has thousands of "Sons" that saved their respective planets. So there would exist a triune God in every Galaxy. Or would the Sons watch over their planets while God was the grand facilitator who ran the project on the large scale while his secretary (the Holy Spirit) floated around making sure everyone has the spirit when they need it.
How confusing this has suddenly become. These are questions that must have answers. Christians get their name from "Christ," which is Greek for "Messiah," which is Hebrew for "Anointed." A "Christian" would have to believe that Jesus is the Anointed one of the Jewish faith. What about all the other "Christs" then? How many planets has there been this fulfillment? How many planets has this fulfillment not yet come? Are we multiplying our Godhead? Is every Christ another essence of God? Or is there still only 3 persons? What about the interstellar holy Spirit? How large is the body of Christ?
If any of the above is challenging your faith, then I hope you do not shut your mind to your doubt. If you do not believe there ever has been or ever will be intelligent life aside from us humans, then this may have been a waste of your time and you should be reading science articles instead of theology. However, if you accept the possibility that there could be, then you must face the implications of such an existence. I beg of you that you do not shut me out as an apostate that you should not take seriously, but that you think through these issues yourself and make your own conclusions. I think God can handle your questioning. Can you?
First I should say that I believe it is very likely that sentient life forms exist elsewhere in the universe. The universe is far too large and far too old for us to be the only intelligent creatures that exist. As it has been said, that would be an awfully big waste of space. I am not an astrologist nor biologist nor chemist nor astrophysicist, but when I imagine the earth, a tiny planet in a tiny solar system sitting on the edge of one of countless galaxies in our enormous universe, I see a great possibility that there is (or was at one time) intelligent, conscious life somewhere in the vastness of space.
What would that say about God?
I believe that it would only go to show how magnificent and glorious a creator our God is that he could plant the seeds of life all over the universe. Why did he make man? Assuming that he did, then I think the bigger question should be why did he make only man? My answer is that he would not have necessarily had to have only created man. Just as he created the deer, the elephant, the squirrel, and the tiger, so too could he have created elsewhere a creature that would not only live, but look back to him in wonder, and search for their creator. Would it make God "love" us any less? (I put "love" in parentheses to recognize the very human term we apply to a being without body, hormones, or instincts. It is not now the place to discuss the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of how we talk about God). I think not. Does it make you think that God loves us less when we see that there are more people in the world than we thought? If there was discovered an island in the Pacific Ocean that had been cut off from the rest of the world for centuries and found that there were humans living there quite comfortably, would we be upset that there were that many more people on the planet that God had to divide his love and attention among? Not at all! If anything, we should be happy and glad that there are more human beings capable of searching for God and living in fellowship with us. The existence of ETI (Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) does not take away from how much God cares for humans. How limiting would that be, if it did? Do we not think that God is really wrapped up in our own worldly affairs? Isn't it the case that we like to imagine God as living within our own atmosphere? It is easier to imagine an Ozone God that cares about everybody than it is to recognize the truth that God sees the farthest star in the farthest galaxy just as clearly as he sees any sparrows falling in the United States. Therefore, I challenge the theology of anyone who would believe that God could not love us as much if ETI existed.
The effect on our theology of God, however, is not what I really wish to discuss. It is the triune God of mainstream Christianity that I wish to question, more specifically, the being of the Son, Jesus the Christ, the supposed fulfillment of Jewish prophecy regarding a Messiah, the savior of the world, one who has been sent from the father God the Creator to die on the cross to atone for the sins of mankind who forsake the God that created them and worshiped the created instead of the creator. What would be the effect of this second person of the Trinity if ETI was ever discovered?
First of all, one must start at the beginning. Allow me to examine the story of human history. Although I believe human history began thousands and thousands of years ago, I will humor the creationists in brief. Adam and Eve, the first human beings on the planet, were created immortal, without death or sin. The serpent then tempted Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit, and Adam ate after her, and humanity has been in sin ever since. God then called Abram some time after the flood (in which God wiped out all of mankind save Noah and his family), established a covenant with him, and has since updated the covenant with Moses leading the Israelite sons of Jacob out of their bondage in Egypt into the desert where he established the law before allowing the next generation of people to enter the promised land and slaughter everyone they could find. Since then the Israelites have had a few kings, some good, some bad, but overall they have faired pretty poorly as far as holding up their end of the covenant with God, and so out of divine punishment, they were exiled out of their promised land into the Babylonian east where they struggled to rediscover their identity as a people without their temple or divinely given land. Eventually their prophets began speaking of a day when God would restore balance and judge the nations, exalting the Israelites as his chosen people once again. This day would be heralded by God's chosen Messiah, or Anointed one; a king who would lead the people to victory and national independence once again. As Cyrus freed the slaves of the kingdoms he conquered, he became the Messiah of the Jews in allowing them to return back to their homeland and rebuild their cities. All was not well in the faith, however, as within a couple centuries they were persecuted and sought out to be slaughtered as a people and they dreamed again of a day when God would right the wrongs done to them, if not in this life then in the next. A few centuries more and the Maccabean Revolt gained independence for Israel, if only for a short while, before they were again occupied by the Romans until a man Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary arrived on the scene. This man was the son of God (whatever that means) and as was later interpreted, God himself in the flesh. The incarnation of the Creator came to earth in the form of a human in Jesus in order to die as the atoning sacrifice for all the sins of the world since Eve bit the apple. The new covenant in Jesus the Christ (Greek for Messiah) was eternal life for all who believed that Jesus the son of god had come in the flesh to die for the sins of the world.
This brings us up to date with Christianity.
Given all of the above, if there was intelligent life on another planet somewhere in the universe, then one would have to ask, did they have an Eden? I for one do not believe that Genesis 1-3 is to be read literally, but if it was, then when God created the first humans, he created them naked, unashamed, in a garden where they had access to eternal life. Why then, we can suppose, wouldn't God also create any other sentient being in a garden of perfection? And would they be made in the image of God as well? Although I do not believe in the literal existence of Eden, Adam, or Eve, I do believe the theology of Genesis in that we are created by God in his image. This Image of God, in my opinion, is what separates us from the animals. We are sentient, self conscious beings that have ever searched for our creator. In this way, I believe that any other sentient extra terrestrial intelligence must, by the very definition of them as such, be created in God's image as well. I do not see any theological problems with this, unless one wants to believe that humans are made physically in the image of God, but I do not believe this is a widespread belief amongst Christians (nor do I hold this belief).
To go back to the question of Eden, one must wonder...If God created this alien species in his image just as we ourselves are, then would he have created a paradise for them as well? And if he did, then was there also a tempter in that paradise? And if so, then although we failed here on earth, could they have not? Could it be possible that other creations did not eat the fruit of the forbidden tree (or whatever other edible object they may have on their planet)? This is, of course, assuming that these other species eat (can one imagine God forbidding the absorption of a specific gas?). Taking aside all of these uncertainties, the question still remains, did they fail? Whatever God forbade them to do, did they, like us, fail and allow sin and death to enter their world?
I must take a step back and say again that I am not endorsing the literal interpretation of the Eden narrative, but examining the implications of doing so. Personally, I do not believe that sin came into humanity by the eating of any mystical plant, but that sin is the selfishness that humans have in them. The desire to elevate the self above all others is our sin, not an inherited disease from the first human. We are all born into innocence, and we all reach an age where our focus turns to ourselves, and the sins are how we act (physically or mentally) to feed this desire to elevate ourselves. I believe that any alien intelligence would have this same "sin." I believe that any population in the universe would struggle amongst themselves with the problem of egocentricity. But I am addressing the problems in taking the Eden narrative literally and projecting it onto another planet.
To diverge yet again on a more abstract thought, I must mention the fact that much theology has been done to attempt to explain whether or not God knew Adam and Eve would sin. Did God not know they were going to sin? In which case he had to send his son (who would have supposedly existed at Creation) to die for us as a backup (Jesus as Plan B)? Or did God know we were going to sin and know that he would have to send his son from the start to save us (Jesus as Plan A)? Or, did God already know that he was going to glorify his son, and if all actions in the universe are caused by God, did Eve even have a choice not to eat the forbidden fruit? Were Adam and Eve (and all of humanity) just pawns in God's plan to glorify his son? If God didn't know that humanity would fail, then, aside from the theological issues brought up by the suggestion that God does not know the future, does that imply that alien creatures didn't fail? Or had they all failed, and God tried again with humans and we are just one of the many failures that God has created? Or, if God had planned on the failure of his creation, then one would wonder why he kept creating them. Maybe one of these millennia God would skip the creation of the tempter.
However one interprets the Eden narrative, one way or another I must confess my belief that we are a broken species. We do sin, and however one believes that we obtained that sin, the fact remains that we have it (although hopefully you can see all the problems that would arise if we take Genesis literally). What then would Jesus mean? If Jesus was sent to earth because of our sin, then unless alien civilizations had no sin (which I do not believe), then wouldn't they need a savior too? So would the Son have been sent to other planets to die for them too? In which case, when Jesus came to earth, was it really the first time that he had done something like that? Or has he gone to other planets and taught his message, then been betrayed (as part of God's interstellar plan) and sentenced to a horrible death on every planet that contains life in the universe? Or to take a step behind that, did Judaism exist on these other planets? Did God establish a covenant before he sent his Son? Was the coming of the Son foretold? Did he fulfill alien Scripture? If all of these answers are "Yes," then Jesus must have been awfully tired.
But wait! There is yet another problem. If Jesus had died for every civilization, then was there also a resurrection on every planet? Most Christians would believe that without the resurrection, Christianity ceases to be. One cannot be a Christian without the Resurrection. Then what would it mean if the Son had already been resurrected? This would make no sense. Supposedly, when he was resurrected, he still had his human body. He still bore the holes in his hands and feet, and his wound in his side. If the Son retains his wounds even in the afterlife, then wouldn't he also have to retain his physical appearance? In which case, would he have had to have been some type of shape shifter that could change into any alien species? Would he have had to hide the scars from every other time that he had been killed? Or perhaps, did he only retain his physical body until the ascension? Then what happened to his body? Did it vaporize? How many bodies could the Son have had? Millions? Supposedly when Jesus returns in the Parousia he will still have his human body. Does this mean that he is returning to the other planets as well? Does this mean that he's going to have to change his bodily appearance every time God decides to end the world? Or will God end the universe all at once and Jesus will somehow ride in on his white horse (or whatever other alien creature he may be riding) at every planet at the same time?
If we wish to erase this dilemna of time and space in dealing with the Son, then maybe God just had more than one Son. This solves our problem, right? God is the father of all planets, but then there was a savior for each individual planet, and so God really has thousands of "Sons" that saved their respective planets. So there would exist a triune God in every Galaxy. Or would the Sons watch over their planets while God was the grand facilitator who ran the project on the large scale while his secretary (the Holy Spirit) floated around making sure everyone has the spirit when they need it.
How confusing this has suddenly become. These are questions that must have answers. Christians get their name from "Christ," which is Greek for "Messiah," which is Hebrew for "Anointed." A "Christian" would have to believe that Jesus is the Anointed one of the Jewish faith. What about all the other "Christs" then? How many planets has there been this fulfillment? How many planets has this fulfillment not yet come? Are we multiplying our Godhead? Is every Christ another essence of God? Or is there still only 3 persons? What about the interstellar holy Spirit? How large is the body of Christ?
If any of the above is challenging your faith, then I hope you do not shut your mind to your doubt. If you do not believe there ever has been or ever will be intelligent life aside from us humans, then this may have been a waste of your time and you should be reading science articles instead of theology. However, if you accept the possibility that there could be, then you must face the implications of such an existence. I beg of you that you do not shut me out as an apostate that you should not take seriously, but that you think through these issues yourself and make your own conclusions. I think God can handle your questioning. Can you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)