Another Christian Dilemma

[Epic Beard Man]

My last post should have said 'without'. Desole.

It does and doesn't. Christianity also sees humans as disgustingly flawed, hellbound beings unworthy of G-d's love. It makes humans the centre because it sees us as, apparently, the most unworthy and despicable.

Hmm I didn't think of it from this perspective...

 

[Rival]

They weren't responsible, but they were infected by the sin that Adam and Eve took in. Therefore, with the stain of sin on their soul, they were adopted by the devil. But God, being all good fixed that. He took them (and us) from the devil, because he is a good and loving God.

He is the Savior. He saved us from ourselves.

But the idea that we need saving from an evil entity that a god created makes no sense. Why would your god create an entity he knew would challenge him and lose? That is ludicrous.

 

[Cooky]

But the idea that we need saving from an evil entity that a god created makes no sense. Why would your god create an entity he knew would challenge him and lose? That is ludicrous.

It makes even less sense to create robots that do only as programmed. How boring is that? Seriously.

I think God knew we were going to have minds of our own. I would not want my children to be mindless drones, and I would sacrifice my efforts for the joy of raising them, even with punishments from time to time. That's what love is all about -seeing it through even with all the ups and downs... Watching them grow. Hoping they love you in return and feeling that love when they do.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

@Rival brought up an interesting point!

It is not just a question for a savior to be human but an adversary who is a subordinate to his Creator knowingly fights his creator and knows he will lose. Either Satan is the most idiotic malevolent entity, or merely the avatar of stupidity. I always was curious why Satan would fight against someone who it knows will eventually defeat it. It's almost like giving a five year old boxing gloves to spar Mike Tyson.

 

[Rival]

It makes even less sense to create robots that do only as programmed. How boring is that? Seriously.

I think God knew we were going to have minds of our own. I would not want my children to be mindless drones, and I would sacrifice my efforts for the joy of raising them, even with punishments from time to time. That's what love is all about -seeing it through even with all the ups and downs... Watching them grow.

Yes, but in Christianity the devil is thought to be a fallen angel. Angels, while they have free will, are hardly going to be inclined to rebel against an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator. What would be the point of that? You will lose; it's a done deal. And why would you want to?

 

[Cooky]

@Rival brought up an interesting point!

It is not just a question for a savior to be human but an adversary who is a subordinate to his Creator knowingly fights his creator and knows he will lose. Either Satan is the most idiotic malevolent entity, or merely the avatar of stupidity. I always was curious why Satan would fight against someone who it knows will eventually defeat it. It's almost like giving a five year old boxing gloves to spar Mike Tyson.

We all know how good it feels to sin. We also know how good it feels to be just.

Satan likes the feeling of sin more than he likes the feeling of honest goodness. That's all... So how did Satan loose..?

 

[exchemist]

But the lion is a representation of the "lion of Judah" yes I get it. But lions do not have the cognitive faculties to conjugate verbs and nouns in the language humans can understand. So alas I ask the question again, why a bipedal creature? If Jesus is my salvation what about the aliens that soon to arrive on our planet who are more ancient than us? Do we tell them about a human that existed over 2,500 years ago that existed and died for the sins of a human species and not their species?

I think the issue of Jesus would be hard to explain to another species that existed billions of years before humans were ever even though of.

No the lion is not the lion of Judah. You're missing the point. Have you read the books? Apparently not. OK. Aslan is the Messiah sent to Narnia as a lion because it is a magical world in which animals are like people, thinking and talking and the lion - who talks too - is the king of the beasts. It was a children's story. But the parallel with Jesus is quite evident if you read the books.

My point is that C S Lewis had the idea - or so it seems to me - that the Messiah might come to any morally aware alien civilisation in a suitable form to be counted one of them, to teach and set an example as Christ did on Earth for Mankind. That seems to me far more reasonable than to imagine, absurdly and arrogantly, that Man is uniquely the object of God's attention in all the universe.

 

[Cooky]

Yes, but in Christianity the devil is thought to be a fallen angel. Angels, while they have free will, are hardly going to be inclined to rebel against an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator. What would be the point of that? You will lose; it's a done deal. And why would you want to?

They probably get to have blissful orgies, with much cocaine. And they never feel bad about it. In fact, they love it forever.

And when they see honest goodness, it makes them angry.

...Probably.

...So everyone wins. We all get what we want in the end.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

No the lion is not the lion of Judah. You're missing the point. Have you read the books? Apparently not. OK. Aslan is the Messiah sent to Narnia as a lion because it is a magical world in which animals are like people, thinking and talking and the lion - who talks too - is the king of the beasts. It was a children's story. But the parallel with Jesus is quite evident if you read the books.

My point is that C S Lewis had the idea - or so it seems to me - that the Messiah might come to any morally aware alien civilisation in a suitable form to be counted one of them, to teach and set an example as Christ did on Earth for Mankind. That seems to me far more reasonable than to imagine, absurdly and arrogantly, that Man is uniquely the object of God's attention in all the universe.

But in reality Jesus didn't come as a lion but as a Jewish man who is allegedly crucified and had died. According to Jewish thought Jesus failed. To the Christian, he did not. The point I'm making is why a bipedal organism? The idea as Rival had put it is that humans are sinful despite humans not existing during the time of Adam we take the burden of sin. With that being said Jesus the only begotten son of God and by only we are talking about the only being in the universe that is a big title to have. Why a human is God's ONLY son is beyond me and considering there to be the potential of older and wiser creations why is God's ONLY son a human?

 

[exchemist]

But in reality Jesus didn't come as a lion but as a Jewish man who is allegedly crucified and had died. According to Jewish thought Jesus failed. To the Christian, he did not. The point I'm making is why a bipedal organism? The idea as Rival had put it is that humans are sinful despite humans not existing during the time of Adam we take the burden of sin. With that being said Jesus the only begotten son of God and by only we are talking about the only being in the universe that is a big title to have. Why a human is God's ONLY son is beyond me and considering there to be the potential of older and wiser creations why is God's ONLY son a human?

Well I think I've already answered that twice now. But let's rewind a bit as you seem to be missing some theology.

God the Son was, according to standard theology (Nicene Creed), begotten of the Father before all ages and subsequently, at a point in the history of mankind, became incarnate of the Virgin Mary et homo factus est and was made man. So he was made man as a separate thing entirely from his genesis from the Father. And after his return to the Father at his ascension into heaven after the Resurrection there is no particular reason to think he would necessarily have to continue as a physical man. So his taking human shape may have been just one episode, which may not preclude his taking another shape for another similar purpose elsewhere in the universe.

In short, there is no reason in principle why the same God the Son could not also have been incarnate in an alien world in another form, to fulfil the same purpose for those creatures.

 

[Cooky]

They probably get to have blissful orgies, with much cocaine. And they never feel bad about it. In fact, they love it forever.

And when they see honest goodness, it makes them angry.

...Probably.

...So everyone wins. We all get what we want in the end.

...Other more sociopathic or psychopathic indulging souls, who enjoy that more than honest goodness, get to torment others for eternity. Etc., etc.

And Satan and the fallen angels get to devour and do as they like to their evil hearts content.

 

[ChristineM]

Is there a universe out there where there isn't a god?

I would say all of them.

 

[wizanda]

Only in the King James Bible does it say that Jesus is begotten. It is a mistranslation.

Psalms 2:6-7 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. (7) I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten (H3205) thee.

H3205 יָלַד yâlad
A primitive root; to bear young; causatively to beget; medically to act as midwife; specifically to show lineage: - bear, beget, birth ([-day]), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail (-eth, -ing woman).

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten (G3449) Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

G3439 μονογενής monogenēs
From G3441 and G1096; only born, that is, sole: - only (begotten, child).
Total KJV occurrences: 16

only, 9
Luke 7:12, Luke 8:42, Luke 9:38, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Hebrews 11:17, 1 John 4:9
begotten, 6
John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:16, John 3:18, Hebrews 11:17, 1 John 4:9
child, 1
Luke 9:38

It means an only child from the Ancient Greek; which again shows that John was wrong, as the scriptures say we all are Children of the Most High (Psalms 82:6) the same as Yeshua.

G5206 υἱοθεσία uihothesia
From a presumed compound of G5207 and a derivative of G5087; the placing as a son, that is, adoption (figuratively Christian sonship in respect to God): - adoption (of children, of sons).

This would be the correct word for begotten as it would be to adopt; so thank you for the point, hadn't noticed that before.

In my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The same way a scientist would want to know the functions of an amoeba. I think if I designed a sentient being I'd be curious about its existence.

A scientist studies an amoeba doesn't try to relate to amoebas.

And a desire for socialization really only happens in social species. Monotheists don't typically claim that gods are pack, herd, or swarm animals.

 

[sealchan]

Considering scientific evidence states that the universe is expanding infinitely (or to infinity) and considering there are perhaps billions of planets, God being the ruler of the universe why of all the planets that exist and the possible life forms that are more ancient than human beings why is God’s “only son” a human?

All things considered if we took a more logical approach at what is more likely than not, why would God choose a human and not some other life form like an amoeba? What is so important about being a human among all the possible creatures in the universe why choose a human being?

That plays well in a theater near us...human stories about God are human-o-centric. Maybe that is the main reason why our nearest neighbors are keeping us at a distance until we overcome the adolescence of our literalistic faith beliefs...alien visitation now would cause too much depression and suicide for too many.

 

[oldbadger]

Considering scientific evidence states that the universe is expanding infinitely

Scientific evidence?
I thought that the majority of 'scientific' opinion thought that our Universe was FINITE but UNBOUNDED?

...............(or to infinity) and considering there are perhaps billions of planets,......

More like billions of Galaxies............

............God being the ruler of the universe why of all the planets that exist and the possible life forms that are more ancient than human beings why is God’s “only son” a human?

Well, yeah...... a good point there.
But if Erik von Daniken is right then our 'creators' might have looked a bit human, no? And the more we discover planets which could support our kind of life-forms, so the more possible his theories could be........ up 'til treated with derision by many 'scientists'.

All things considered if we took a more logical approach at what is more likely than not, why would God choose a human and not some other life form like an amoeba? What is so important about being a human among all the possible creatures in the universe why choose a human being?

They may have chosen Apes, and we are the clones......... that's possible 'science'.

 

[Cooky]

There is a theory of multiple universes....But for this thread let us assume for a moment the deity God, the designer, the author and authoritarian of all things that exist do in fact exist (and is neutral to any specific doctrine), and for simple measure let us take into account the Christian doctrine of Jesus' existence. Why a bipedal organism? Why a human?

I guess ultimately this boils down to the geocentric and human-centric ideology that human beings sees themselves as center of the universe perhaps?

Here's a thought. Have you ever considered how many times life has taken 'flight', and developed wings, completely seperate and independently from one another..?

I've heard 6. Off the top of my head, I can think of dinosaurs, bees, birds, bats... There are others.

This leads me to believe that mutations are not so random, but possibly predetermined somehow. Maybe string theory can explain that, IDK. So who is to say that other life forms, should they exist extraterestrially, would not end up as being very similar to man not only appearance wise, but also by having a soul. In that case, there would be no need for Jesus to be a different shape anyways.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

A scientist studies an amoeba doesn't try to relate to amoebas.

And a desire for socialization really only happens in social species. Monotheists don't typically claim that gods are pack, herd, or swarm animals.

I never said a scientist is trying to relate I said curious just as the clock designer is curious of the intricacies of the machines that move the hand to show the correct time. That is not saying the designer is what it creates but tries to understand the nature of what is made.

 

[Segev Moran]

Considering scientific evidence states that the universe is expanding infinitely (or to infinity) and considering there are perhaps billions of planets, God being the ruler of the universe why of all the planets that exist and the possible life forms that are more ancient than human beings why is God’s “only son” a human?

All things considered if we took a more logical approach at what is more likely than not, why would God choose a human and not some other life form like an amoeba? What is so important about being a human among all the possible creatures in the universe why choose a human being?

Can you imagine how absurd it would be if Christians claim an amoeba is the messiah?

Also, it will require a very small cross

 

[74x12]

Considering scientific evidence states that the universe is expanding infinitely (or to infinity) and considering there are perhaps billions of planets, God being the ruler of the universe why of all the planets that exist and the possible life forms that are more ancient than human beings why is God’s “only son” a human?

All things considered if we took a more logical approach at what is more likely than not, why would God choose a human and not some other life form like an amoeba? What is so important about being a human among all the possible creatures in the universe why choose a human being?

Do I really need to point out the difference between an amoeba and a human? Why even talk about appearance? Granted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But what about cognitive power? How many amoeba authors have made it on the best seller's list lately?

I would suppose that one single human eyeball is more complex and fascinating than an amoeba.

Logically we would think that God would make whatever He cared for the most to have the cognitive function necessary to actually acknowledge Him; and be able to interact with Him. We don't see any animals except humans wondering about a God or gods.