Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Would ET contact challenge religious faith ?

120 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Davros of Skaro

The creator gives his people free will, to choose to obey or break the law. Without a law there would be no law-breaking and no choice. We could create robots that say they love us and do good things, but it would not be real love. I believe the creator desires a people that choose to love him freely and not out of obligation or programing. He proves he is a good, loving creator when every human breaks the laws and he provides a way of escape. After the pardon, if I keep his laws, it is because I love the creator and not because I fear death. If I tell a million truths and say one lie, I will always be a liar. If I give away a million dollars and yet steal one, I will always be a thief. If I save a thousand lives and take one, I will always be a murderer. I am a law breaker and I cannot undo what is done.

Amen Brother!

God could come to Earth right now amd inspire everyone, but that would take away the blind obedience which he enjoys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

The creator gives his people free will, to choose to obey or break the law. Without a law there would be no law-breaking and no choice. We could create robots that say they love us and do good things, but it would not be real love. I believe the creator desires a people that choose to love him freely and not out of obligation or programing. He proves he is a good, loving creator when every human breaks the laws and he provides a way of escape. After the pardon, if I keep his laws, it is because I love the creator and not because I fear death. If I tell a million truths and say one lie, I will always be a liar. If I give away a million dollars and yet steal one, I will always be a thief. If I save a thousand lives and take one, I will always be a murderer. I am a law breaker and I cannot undo what is done.

That's a new one, if there was no law there would be no choice.

Still his people couldn't keep the law, freewill doesn't change this as the fault is human nature. It comes back to the inept creator, blaming his creations for not meeting his expectations knowing full well they could never in the first place.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

The short scoop on Christianity, well my take on it... Law breakers stand before a good judge and are guilty of breaking the law. The good judge cannot allow guilty persons to go free or he is a corrupt judge and not good. The judge loves the law breakers but the sentence is death. The son of the judge, who never broke any laws, asks the judge if he can take the death sentence and let the law breaker go free. The judge is pleased in his sons sacrifice and the law would be satisfied. If the Son had ever broken the law, he would not be able to stand in the place of the law breakers. The good judge created the law because the law is good, but the people he loved were corrupt.

That law calls for the punishment of the wicked, and so the unjust punishment of the innocent does not "fulfill the law".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Amen Brother!

God could come to Earth right now amd inspire everyone, but that would take away the blind obedience which he enjoys.

He doesn't want blind obedience, he wants love.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ambelamba

Now my belief is confirmed: People avoid thinking about the worst case scenario, unless they are professionally required.

The worst case scenario on ET contact is about them having a very incompatible religious belief system, but virtually no one ever ventured into that kind of possibility because it's way too grim. Well, except for Halo franchise. But we certainly didn't see The Covenant persecuting Earth religions in Halo games. That could have caused massive controversy.

So, what if aliens come to Earth to spread their kind of religion, which is likely to be very different from ours, with force?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewAge1
The worst case scenario on ET contact is about them having a very incompatible religious belief system, but virtually no one ever ventured into that kind of possibility because it's way too grim. Well, except for Halo franchise. But we certainly didn't see The Covenant persecuting Earth religions in Halo games. That could have caused massive controversy.

So, what if aliens come to Earth to spread their kind of religion, which is likely to be very different from ours, with force?

Let alone, what is they have proof of their belief system being extremely advanced scientifically and spiritually? That's a possibility, though it seems far-fetched from our point of view, it might well be that such beings would have a much better grasps of physics, the nature of the (Multi?)Universe than we can actually imagine.

Edited by sam_comm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyOtherAccount
Theologian Robin Lovin doesn't believe that discovering alien life would cause a 'crisis of faith'.

This is a nice topic...

I remember wondering about discovering intelligent life when the search got under way during the Carl Sagon days.

I would like to explain the logic I have used to understand a number of things circulating in this (and popping up in other) discussions. [boy, am I going to be unpopular now...]

Aliens probably use a scale of the inhabited Planet's superstition percentage as a decision for formal contact.

This Planet is still child like as a whole.

Yep! The little kid gets a wipe of icing from iced cake. Mom says, "O.K! Who put their finger on the cake?" The child says, "It wasn't me!" while his tongue wipes the icing from his lip.

How does Mom explain to the kid how she knows the child did it? The child can't understand it. He hasn't reached that level of abstract thinking yet. She doesn't explain it, because nobody can.

Four thousand years ago there was absolutely no way anyone, even god, could scientifically explain how he brought his creation into existence. Man hadn't even conceived of the modern use of the Scientific Method yet. (I wonder if we can even understand his explanation today.)

Besides, his words, his revelation isn't about science! It is about god making himself known to those who might be interested. [You are one of the interested if you keep talking about god; trying to prove or disprove god, as I keep seeing happen.]

Neither the creationists nor their opponents are right, IMHO. As my good friend, Milfred Olson, would say, "The truth isn't at the extreme ends of the continuum, but usually somewhere in the middle." (Why else have a continuum?)

It wouldn't for most of us, even the fundamentalist Christians out there, if put in the correct context.

Please forgive my cynicism... but isn't it more common for those circles to just ignore the facts. "What alien?" lol "What evolution?" Etc.

While I believe that it would most certainly challenge some religious beliefs, I also believe that those particular sects would somehow spin it into their favor.

That's true, too.

:P 2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Isn't that only because he is allowed to be in the presence of god and ends up being exposed and revealing god's existence by reflecting the shekinah glory? ...like Moses did? Job 1

I dunno. After the aliens ate the first few dozen missionaries I think the churches would get the idea they weren't regular, god-fearin' folk.

As a missionary, the truth is that the churches wouldn't miss us at all. It is a very lonely life, as applies to one's home culture. But the nationals and indigenous people are great!

The good judge was a poor creator then (never mind his fictitious account of creation).

I don't think the earlier points in the earlier comments were recognized (robot --no choice--verses--non-robot--choosing).

1. To have a choice there has to be two or more options. In order to create the way you think things should be, we would be created in perfection and never allowed to choose an option. Such an opportunity to choose has within it the possibility of making a wrong choice. That might cause a contamination--as it did--known as original sin (if you are of the Western Christian truditions.)

The final result being someone criticises the creator's creation because he allowed us to have freedom of choice rather than being the robot creation you desire. Or maybe you don't desire because you hadn't realized the earlier point. But then there would be conplaints about not having freedom of choice--if we were clever enough to know what we were missing.

2. The way I further see it, the fact that we have a choice proves we have free will. The alternative would be like breathing. I have no choice about breathing--it is involuntary. However, the things that are voluntary are those that involve choosing and are therefore handled by our free will. It all ties together!!!

Amen Brother!

God could come to Earth right now amd inspire everyone, but that would take away the blind obedience which he enjoys.

Indeed, my friend!

That's a new one, if there was no law there would be no choice.

Still his people couldn't keep the law, freewill doesn't change this as the fault is human nature. It comes back to the inept creator, blaming his creations for not meeting his expectations knowing full well they could never in the first place.

Yeah, well, he provided the redemption we all need, as well.

zu fela ist zu fela!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I agree with everything you said. Except, a robot wouldn't be able to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

I don't think the earlier points in the earlier comments were recognized (robot --no choice--verses--non-robot--choosing).

The freewill excuse is a red herring. You're not understanding the real issue here, the creator makes laws he knows his creation cannot follow, and blames them anyway.
1. To have a choice there has to be two or more options. In order to create the way you think things should be, we would be created in perfection and never allowed to choose an option. Such an opportunity to choose has within it the possibility of making a wrong choice. That might cause a contamination--as it did--known as original sin (if you are of the Western Christian truditions.)

Does God have choice, or does perfection make him a robot?
The final result being someone criticises the creator's creation because he allowed us to have freedom of choice rather than being the robot creation you desire. Or maybe you don't desire because you hadn't realized the earlier point. But then there would be conplaints about not having freedom of choice--if we were clever enough to know what we were missing.
The creator blames the creation because it fails to meet his expectations, but he knew it wouldn't, yet he condemns it none the less. You're too hung up on choice, using it as an excuse for God's blame game.
Yeah, well, he provided the redemption we all need, as well.
The end justify the means. And does that redeems his creating skills? What he failed in the first place? Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MyOtherAccount

OK, [Tongue in cheek!] I concede to your point of view. I think I can state it as, "If there is a creator, he should create robots or Nothing at all!" How is a robot a creative act? Boring... un-original...

It isn't a matter of understanding what you are saying, but of getting you to understand the implications of what you are saying. Those implications amount to an impossible set of circumstances:

. you are demanding no robots (no free will)

. you are demanding no choices (since you say a bad choice is human nature and god created a flawed human nature)

So, in your ways of thinking any kind of creation is impossible, so any kind of god is impossible. The same old flaw of Touring's Chinese Room and Scrodinger's Cat--hide the oppositions point so deeply in the thought problem as to make it irretrivable and since it is there they won't argue against what is said, i.e. Those who can make their way through your maze, won't complain--seeing the point they are making is there within the thought project. Those who can't see their way through the maze, will be agreeable because they are on your side of the debate.

Besides your ways of thinking are what my associates and I label as circular thinking, as well.

As I said, "Zu fela ist zu fela." This has discussion has become disinteresting since neither of us will change what we believe--and it is belief!!!

We must agree to disagree! Go ahead and reply. I will read it, but why reply. Someone will say we are bickering and end the topic, so I will not reply. There might be people who are waiting to add a different kind of comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maximusnow

That law calls for the punishment of the wicked, and so the unjust punishment of the innocent does not "fulfill the law".

A chief’s problem is that his tribe is killing each other because they are jealous of their wives and husbands cheating on them. He is a good chief and makes a law that any guilty party will receive 30 lashes. The next morning he is summoned that one was caught in the act and it’s his mother. The chief is devastated and desires to not punish her, but this would make him a bad chief and a hypocrite. The chief ties his mother to the tree and tears her shirt open, and wraps his body around hers and takes every lash to spare her. This act fulfilled the good law and spared those he loved even though he created the law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

It isn't a matter of understanding what you are saying, but of getting you to understand the implications of what you are saying.

What part of "The creator blames the creation because it fails to meet his expectations, but he knew it wouldn't, yet he condemns it none the less." don't you understand? Nothing about free will, nothing about robots. The issue is the creator rather blames creation for the way he made it.
So, in your ways of thinking any kind of creation is impossible, so any kind of god is impossible. The same old flaw of Touring's Chinese Room and Scrodinger's Cat--hide the oppositions point so deeply in the thought problem as to make it irretrivable and since it is there they won't argue against what is said, i.e. Those who can make their way through your maze, won't complain--seeing the point they are making is there within the thought project. Those who can't see their way through the maze, will be agreeable because they are on your side of the debate.
Forget thinking, it's not for you. All you've done is constructed a straw man about something I haven't said. Good job.
As I said, "Zu fela ist zu fela." This has discussion has become disinteresting since neither of us will change what we believe--and it is belief!!!

We must agree to disagree! Go ahead and reply. I will read it, but why reply. Someone will say we are bickering and end the topic, so I will not reply. There might be people who are waiting to add a different kind of comment.

You may read it, but given your past posts you won't understand it.

You would've been more believable if you had just said "I lack any reading comprehension skills" and left it at that.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maximusnow

The law makers are to blame for knowing that those laws will be broken and yet still created them. My children can’t understand why, I will not let them do whatever they want. I must be a horrible father for not letting my sons shoot guns at each other in my home, when they are missing on purpose. Why not let them play in traffic or drink liquid cleaner under the sink? I made the law in my home which created law breakers, so I am to blame. I can admit I am a law breaker. I am not a good person, I once lied, and I dishonored my Mother and Father, I have stolen. I have broken every one of the Ten Commandments.

Rules upset those who want to break them, and they are offended when others refuse to admit that they are not law breakers. Have you ever once stolen anything that was not yours? Have you ever once told a single lie? Are you guilty of breaking the law, even if you don’t believe in them, would you be guilty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

The law makers are to blame for knowing that those laws will be broken and yet still created them. My children can’t understand why, I will not let them do whatever they want. I must be a horrible father for not letting my sons shoot guns at each other in my home, when they are missing on purpose. Why not let them play in traffic or drink liquid cleaner under the sink? I made the law in my home which created law breakers, so I am to blame. I can admit I am a law breaker. I am not a good person, I once lied, and I dishonored my Mother and Father, I have stolen. I have broken every one of the Ten Commandments.

Rules upset those who want to break them, and they are offended when others refuse to admit that they are not law breakers. Have you ever once stolen anything that was not yours? Have you ever once told a single lie? Are you guilty of breaking the law, even if you don’t believe in them, would you be guilty?

Did you create your children wicked and sinful, knowing full well they can't follow your laws? No? Instead of making asinine analogies more time should be put into comprehension.

Why have you made the same mistake MyOtherAccount has by not reading what I've said? Really I have to know why reading is so difficult for some people.

Anyone who creates something that does not and cannot measure up is completely at fault, freewill doesn't change the very flawed natured of the creation nor does it change the impossible law.

If you do that to your children, then yes you are horrible.

Edited by Rlyeh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

He doesn't want blind obedience, he wants love.

How many wives did Joseph Smith have?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

The law makers are to blame for knowing that those laws will be broken and yet still created them. My children can’t understand why, I will not let them do whatever they want. I must be a horrible father for not letting my sons shoot guns at each other in my home, when they are missing on purpose. Why not let them play in traffic or drink liquid cleaner under the sink? I made the law in my home which created law breakers, so I am to blame. I can admit I am a law breaker. I am not a good person, I once lied, and I dishonored my Mother and Father, I have stolen. I have broken every one of the Ten Commandments.

Rules upset those who want to break them, and they are offended when others refuse to admit that they are not law breakers. Have you ever once stolen anything that was not yours? Have you ever once told a single lie? Are you guilty of breaking the law, even if you don’t believe in them, would you be guilty?

Amen Brother!

I once had the graven image of Garfield the Cat in my home.I could have had a billion Garfields, but just one is enough to break God's law.

I am an idolator, but through God's mercy I can beg for forgiveness.

Edited by davros of skaro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

How many wives did Joseph Smith have?

I don't know, but Brigham young had two hundred. There are rules in the law of more see for having more than one wife. But teo hundred is far to many in my opionen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Amen Brother!

I once had the graven image of Garfield the Cat in my home.I could have had a billion Garfields, but just one is enough to break God's law.

I am an idolator, but through God's mercy I can beg for forgiveness.

Only if you worshipped Garfield as a god. But on the other hand there are many things you can worship. Like money or cars or your loved ones.

Edited by danielost
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

I don't know, but Brigham young had two hundred. There are rules in the law of more see for having more than one wife. But teo hundred is far to many in my opionen.

How many do you have?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quaentum

He proves he is a good, loving creator when every human breaks the laws and he provides a way of escape.

Was he good when he brought the flood? Certainly adults sinned but did the little children sin or even the unborn children? What was their crime that they had to be drowned?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

How many do you have?

None

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

Only if you worshipped Garfield as a god. But on the other hand there are many things you can worship. Like money or cars or your loved ones.

When I was a kid.I had two plush Garfield dolls, several Garfield books, I drew my own comics and hung them up on the Wall.

I was pushing a grey area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Was he good when he brought the flood? Certainly adults sinned but did the little children sin or even the unborn children? What was their crime that they had to be drowned?

There were no children. According to a book not in the bible. God waited 120 years after the last child was born. The 120 years is mentioned in Genesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quaentum

There were no children. According to a book not in the bible. God waited 120 years after the last child was born. The 120 years is mentioned in Genesis.

Except that Noah's sons were born when he was 500 and the flood happened when he was 600. That is only 100 years and counters the 120 year claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

There were no children. According to a book not in the bible. God waited 120 years after the last child was born. The 120 years is mentioned in Genesis.

For 120 years people just stopped having children? That is as ridiculous as the flood itself. Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.