What will happen to Christianity when we finally confirm ET?

a reply to: Akragon

a reply to: WarminIndy


But you would have to really have read the Bible to know that


lets not go there alright...

Grow up a bit...


RIght, since only "children" believe the Bible to be the authoritative Word of (the only true) God, whereas "grownups"---by which you mean, yourself, naturally---know better. As WarminIndy notes, most "critics" of the Bible have never actually read it. Some have, but I don't find their "scholarship" any more convincing than the "sure-ities" mouthed by armchair know it alls. As Alistair McGrath notes in his book, The Twilight of Atheism, it is gradually dawning on people who are truly educated ( as opposed to indoctrinated) that the arguments for the existence of God are at least as good as the arguments against. Hopefully you will do more homework in the future, so you can make statements here and elsewhere that are at least more honest and better informed.

a reply to: williamjpellas

So because I chose not to accept the label Christian and reject many aspects of it... I must be ignorant of the bible, is that what you're saying?

I've done more "homework" on early Christianity then you could possibly imagine, and I've probably read the book more times then you've looked at it... theres my assumption and we know yours...

So lets quit the personal attacks and focus on the question... IF you don't like it or have no interest in posting an answer... theres plenty of other theads around the forum...

and I am no atheist either...

a reply to: Akragon

I'm Christian (Catholic) and the subject of extra-terrestrials or "alien" life is totally compatible with how I was raised.

More so...."you shall know them by their fruits" as opposed to any other verse or passage.

I also (bear with my heretical comparison here) was rather fond of Ridley Scott's Prometheus interpretation/allegory that one of the Engineers was crucified. Know, I am plainly aware that's a Sci-Fi movie based on some universal principles that parallel the New Testament and Revelations, but hey - sometimes the stories that last the longest throughout time have the most meaning and truths behind the allegories themselves.

I'm currently reading Exo-Vaticana, and while some of it is well intentioned, I'm also aware of flaws based on my own personal experiences I won't delve into here at the moment....but as long as the fundamental teachings of Christ hold true in our hearts of loving and being kind to those in need and being "wise as serpents" when dealing with the wicked, I suppose when all is said and done, our lives are still in the hands of a Higher Power(s).

My "God" is something that transcends my ability to describe right now, but it's also not separate from Science...as long as that science is tempered with kindness and just methods and applications with regards to the Higher Balance and Order of Creation and all spiritual beings therein.

I predict that mainstream religions will be in a scramble to make themselves relevant in a modern world where Aliens exist.

If it happens slowly with evidence of alien artifacts or a distant wow signal being confirmed there will be a completely different' game plan' set in motion than if aliens landed on the White House lawn and announced "we come in peace oh yeah and theres no God".

Suddenly the tithing that many people paid to the Church &c and the time that they spent on Sunday mornings in the pews will be viewed as a waste. The sheep would feel tricked by the shepard.

I think religious organisations will be travel down either of three paths:

1) accepting Aliens as proof that God created the Universe and other life forms distant to us.

2) Not accepting Aliens. Labelling them as some hoax or conspiracy against God. Maybe even to some religious zealots would actively "chimp out" and start blowing up science institutes etc in a Jihad

3) accept that they were wrong and rebrand as charitiable organisations attempting to make themselves relevant again (I think this is a given as many churches either sit on millions of dollars worth of assets and properties with huge portfolios that they wouldnt want to lose)

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: wyrmboy12

IF you say so...

As I've already stated... IF God created man in HIS image...

what happens when we find something that doesn't look like man?

Besides I didn't say it would disprove Christianity in any case... Only disprove the lack of logic behind fundamentalist theology...

That really made me think of this.



I know the answer is always along the lines of it was allegory or parable unless they want it to be literal for another subject.

I wonder if there are any bibles produced where someone or group took the initiative to annotate the entire thing with what was meant to be literal and what wasn't.

I bet the institutions would fight such with everything they had.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: wyrmboy12

IF you say so...

As I've already stated... IF God created man in HIS image...

what happens when we find something that doesn't look like man?

Besides I didn't say it would disprove Christianity in any case... Only disprove the lack of logic behind fundamentalist theology...

That really made me think of this.

I know the answer is always along the lines of it was allegory or parable unless they want it to be literal for another subject.

I wonder if there are any bibles produced where someone or group took the initiative to annotate the entire thing with what was meant to be literal and what wasn't.

I bet the institutions would fight such with everything they had.

And the above pic made me think of this, God laughs at Adam.
Jeez he can be soo cruel..

a reply to: StalkerSolent

You're missing the part where he (correctly, to the best of my knowledge) identified fundamentalism as an *American* tradition. There's not 800 million Protestants in the United States. (There's not even that many people in the United States.)

Then you missed my rebuttal. He's framing it within a USA context but why?? I'm not. Nor should we. It was his attempt to undermine what I said about my experience on ATS. That's all it was. But of course ATS is international and there is no reason to think ATS's Christian base is either mostly American or Protestant. Which was his argument there. What he said originally was that Christians in general think a certain way. Namely, the vast majority of Christians take Genesis, and other parts of the Bible, allegorically. He also more or less equated protestant = fundamentalist. He proposed fundamentalists would make up less than 10%, closer to 5% of Christendom. Yet as I showed [versus him merely saying it's so] Protestants make up 36.7% of Christendom.

Look:



36.7% of Christendom, at 800 million [not 220 million], is by his own words primarily fundamentalist.

As you can see here his framing of protestants being more or less exclusive to the USA is not accurate. Nor should that have any bearing on the matter to begin with!


Then of course we need to address the underlying premise that most protestants are literalists, and more importantly that most Catholics are not. The crux of his argument hinges on the notion most Catholics don't view Genesis, and other parts of the Bible, literally. Which by the way is NOT what I am reading on Catholic dot com right now. If that's a good indication. I would imagine it is.

Has Pew done research on how many fundamentalists are worldwide?

Good question. What sects/denominations would you say take a literal interpretation to the Bible, and or specifically towards Genesis?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I'm a "Young Earth Creationist" and not ashamed to admit it. I'm not buying the ridiculous timelines being laid out by today's mainstream scientists.

Every one of their dating methods relies on the assumption that radioactive decay rates are constants rather than variables, yet there's plenty of evidence to suggest that they are indeed variables. And if they are variables, then you can pretty much take the established timelines and toss them in the trash where they belong because what's left is simply guesswork.

a reply to: Bone75

How do you avoid/reconcile the issue of dinosaurs on Noah's Ark as a YEC'er? Unless you also don't buy they were actual living and roaming animals?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

They weren't fully grown, plus I think a lot of dinosaurs are being misclassified as separate species.

a reply to: Bone75

light speed debunks Young earth...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And the bible doesn't say how old the earth is btw

a reply to: Akragon

Again, as with radioactive decay rates, you are relying on light speed being a constant rather than a variable. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that this is a false assumption as well.

a reply to: Bone75

I've heard that rebuttal but I have not seen anything in scripture to support they only took babies. Also, if you're not aware [I wasn't until recently], scripture says 14 of every kind of 'clean' animal was taken aboard. So with many animals it wasn't merely 2. It was the 'unclean' animals that were limited to 2 of each kind. Of course nothing in scripture to help categorize which dinosaur would qualify as clean or unclean. In the most forgiving of scenarios all the dinosaurs would be younglings and would be 'unclean'. So 2 of every child dinosaur. They were on the Ark for over a year [not 40 days] according to scripture. So there is all that extra years worth of growth in those youngins as well.

a reply to: Bone75

well no... radioactive decay rates have nothing to do with how fast light travels...

And theres no evidence that light can travel faster then it does... its constant...

Tis a mathematical certainty...not an assumption... of course im no scientist but that's like... grade 9 physics

a reply to: Akragon

well no... radioactive decay rates have nothing to do with how fast light travels...

He's suggesting they can both be "tossed in the trash where they belong" because they are "not constant but are variable".

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

except light speed is constant...

We would not be able to see past 6000 light years away if YEC was correct... its nonsense

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

So do you think scientists have the lifespans and growth rates of dinosaurs nailed down as well?

a reply to: Akragon

I'm guessing you've set up a telescope 6,000 light years away from Earth and pointed it back this way to test that hypothesis?

a reply to: Bone75

that would be a horrible guess...

Theres telescopes all over the world... and we've been able to see The Andromeda Galaxy since 964ad, and im sure before that as well

which is 2.5 million light years away... calculated

Young earth theory fails on every front... including the bible

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy

He's suggesting they can both be "tossed in the trash where they belong" because they are "not constant but are variable".

I'm sure you've spent the last 20 minutes googling my claims... am I wrong?