Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life on Other Planets: Is it a problem for creationists?
LDSdude
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 101 (177998)
01-17-2005 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rei
11-13-2003 3:50 PM


I cannot answer for other religions, but......
I cannot answer all of this for other religions, but I think I can for my own. First of all it is obvious that that whole quote was meant to make creationists look bad. The whole Zontar thing was immature. My religion, (Mormonism) has a few extra volumes of scripture other than the bible that go into greater detail about all this, but I would rather try convincing creationist and atheist skeptics with the one scripture that we all hold common; the bible. In the John 10:16 of the bible, Christ tells of other "sheep", used in the context of people not of that land. This scripture can show how earth was not and is not the only planet that God created for his children to live on. The entire universe or the galaxy may be God's "real estate" in which he creates worlds for his children. And whether he created it all at once or a little at a time I don't know, but remember the scripture, "For with God, all things are possible." -Luke: chapter 1. And when it says God rested, perhaps it was not a long nap as the quote supposes, but more of a short vacation that God didn't neccesarily need. So although the quote is the stupidest thing I've ever seen, and although it is written by someone who clearly has an anti-religious agenda, it shouldn't blind anybody from the truth and it is incorrect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rei, posted 11-13-2003 3:50 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by contracycle, posted 01-18-2005 4:48 AM LDSdude has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 101 (178043)
01-18-2005 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by LDSdude
01-17-2005 11:09 PM


Re: I cannot answer for other religions, but......
So do ants and aliens get to go to LDS heaven?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by LDSdude, posted 01-17-2005 11:09 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 101 (178459)
01-19-2005 4:43 AM


bump

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 79 of 101 (178565)
01-19-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
06-22-2004 7:25 AM


yes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 06-22-2004 7:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 12:52 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 80 of 101 (178567)
01-19-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by contracycle
06-22-2004 7:05 AM


You're welcome

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by contracycle, posted 06-22-2004 7:05 AM contracycle has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 81 of 101 (178570)
01-19-2005 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by PecosGeorge
01-19-2005 12:46 PM


Are you saying that they only get sin when they meet us?
yes
How does that work, exactly? Are you saying that, when they meet us, they're going to radically change their behavior? "Hey, I didn't know you could rob and steal, but I heard you could do it from the humans, so let's get to it?" Or that behaviors they were already doing would suddenly become sinful?
If this species of organisms has only one sex, does that mean they're all gay fornicators? And would that mean that their only means of reproduction would only become sinful after we met them?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-19-2005 12:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-19-2005 12:46 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-19-2005 3:12 PM crashfrog has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 82 of 101 (178616)
01-19-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by crashfrog
01-19-2005 12:52 PM


You're funny, CF
Not a slammer, I see. Thanks.
The concept of pure is perhaps personified in the virgin of either sex. You touch, and that purity is lost. It is difficult to understand perfection, because we do not know it the way it was before Adam had a bad hair day. He left perfection, and what he touched from then on, became tainted. If we touch beings from another world that are still in a state of perfection, our touch will alter their state. It's like putting dirty hands on a clean towel, or some such example.
As for fornicators? Well, that takes place outside of marriage, inside of marriage the two shall become one flesh, and lust and sex and joy and wonders, are a holy thing.
I hope that helps.
This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 01-19-2005 15:14 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 12:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 5:23 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 83 of 101 (178676)
01-19-2005 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by PecosGeorge
01-19-2005 3:12 PM


Well, that takes place outside of marriage, inside of marriage the two shall become one flesh, and lust and sex and joy and wonders, are a holy thing.
What if these aliens require three sexes to procreate? Or what if they don't have marriage at all? That might be "God's plan" for us, but what if it wasn't for them?
What I'm asking is, when you say that they would be sinless until they met us, are you saying that they wouldn't be engaging in behaviors that are sinful until they met us; or that the behaviors they were engaging in would stay the same, but some of those behaviors would become sinful?
It's ludicrous to suggest that exposure to humanity would make them do things they hadn't already thought of doing; but it's incoherent to try to draw a distinction between sin and behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-19-2005 3:12 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-19-2005 8:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 84 of 101 (178746)
01-19-2005 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
01-19-2005 5:23 PM


quote:
or that the behaviors they were engaging in would stay the same, but some of those behaviors would become sinful?
What they were doing would stay the same, what we were doing stayed the same. We did not suddenly do things we had never done before, we did them differently, they would do them differently - and that difference would be sin.
This is conjecture, because the measurements used are those available to describe events that happened to mankind. Unless you have a secret you won't share, you will not be around to see space travel of the magnitude needed to travel to other worlds. So, touching beings on another planet is just not gonna happen.
Bending space? There's a story in the OT, where an angel appeared to Daniel 'while he was still praying'......he got there that fast. Bending space? Orion looks inviting.
This message has been edited by PecosGeorge, 01-19-2005 20:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 5:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 9:19 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 101 (178757)
01-19-2005 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by PecosGeorge
01-19-2005 8:40 PM


We did not suddenly do things we had never done before, we did them differently, they would do them differently - and that difference would be sin.
What do you predict would be the difference, exactly? What I don't understand is how a being could be doing the exact same thing in the same situation, only it's sinful at one point in time and not another, and the only difference is humans visiting their planet.
I mean, I realize that your model has sex sinful in one situation and perfectly fine in another, and I understand the difference is marriage, or whatever. But this would be like sex with my wife being fine, and then sex with my wife becomes sinful, and the only thing that happened was that a friend came over for coffee.
This is conjecture
I know. And I'm not trying to make fun of you or anything. You just had some interesting thoughts on the subject and I'd like to explore them with you. It's fun, I hope?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-19-2005 8:40 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-20-2005 3:39 PM crashfrog has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 86 of 101 (178939)
01-20-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by contracycle
07-01-2004 6:04 AM


All things created are a reflection of the creator.
They are his handiwork, much like the work I do is mine.
You forget one thing. Only humans have the ability to reason for or against God.
I watched a program on bonobos not long ago, and it did very clever things, and the cleverness was stressed by its handler, who saw tremendous ability in the beast. And he was clever, and he was leashed, I suppose to keep him from running off to do bonobos stuff rather than human stuff. I felt so sorry for him, even tho he got to eat a hot dog, which is part of his natural diet. But, I stray.......
If you had asked it to reason for or against God......?
That requires an able-to-reason life form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by contracycle, posted 07-01-2004 6:04 AM contracycle has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 87 of 101 (178978)
01-20-2005 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
01-19-2005 9:19 PM


quote:
What do you predict would be the difference, exactly? What I don't understand is how a being could be doing the exact same thing in the same situation, only it's sinful at one point in time and not another, and the only difference is humans visiting their planet.
Adam and Eve were naked, fine at one point, not fine apres sin. The world they inhabited init was perfect, filled with thistles and thorns and hard work apres sin. The examples are endless. Their decision put a curse on everything, and everything they touch(ed) from then on, was/is subject to that curse. That cannot be allowed to spread onto other worlds.
quote:
I mean, I realize that your model has sex sinful in one situation and perfectly fine in another, and I understand the difference is marriage, or whatever. But this would be like sex with my wife being fine, and then sex with my wife becomes sinful, and the only thing that happened was that a friend came over for coffee.
The sex those two had must have been amazing. Imagine an orgasm lasting for .. uh.. three days and neither one of them gets tired, never has a headache, never says no. And no sex aids, either.
We would not be friends coming for coffee. And they would not understand our propensities - to take over their world, to make money, to kill (if you don't want to, we have ways of making you). They would not understand us, and we would most certainly not understand them. We would be the corrupting influence, certainly - what could possibly change our way of doing things, we have done them this way for so long. A good example of corrupting influence is 'civilization' going to places where the natives are doing things their way, and civilization says no..my way is better...Europeans bringing disease to Natives....see it? This is just an example, using measurements I understand.
A little better?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 9:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2005 4:22 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 88 of 101 (178988)
01-20-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by PecosGeorge
01-20-2005 3:39 PM


Adam and Eve were naked, fine at one point, not fine apres sin.
So, what you're saying is that after the Fall, behaviors that were not sinful became sinful? Even though the behaviors themselves didn't change?
I'm sorry to harp on this point but it's so remarkable that I want to make sure I understand you completely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-20-2005 3:39 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-20-2005 8:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 89 of 101 (179101)
01-20-2005 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
01-20-2005 4:22 PM


quote:
So, what you're saying is that after the Fall, behaviors that were not sinful became sinful? Even though the behaviors themselves didn't change?
What I'm saying is that those who behaved the behaviors no longer behaved them in perfection. It is simple logic, cause and effect, action and consequence. Examples are non-stop.
Is it soup yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2005 4:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2005 4:47 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 90 of 101 (180282)
01-24-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by PecosGeorge
01-20-2005 8:40 PM


What I'm saying is that those who behaved the behaviors no longer behaved them in perfection.
So what about them changed that they were not perfect? If you do the same thing twice, in the same way, how can it be perfect one time and imperfect another?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-20-2005 8:40 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PecosGeorge, posted 01-24-2005 6:53 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024