From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Sep 18 2003 - 17:14:33 EDT
--- Steve Petermann <steve@spetermann.org> wrote:
> Blake,
>
> Thanks for the exposition. I guess I *am* ignorant
> of some of this
> theology.
>
>
> >So, ETs provide a writ large
> > question of what about other religions, etc.
> Missions
> > to the stars seem of little difference to me than
> > missionary work here on earth. So how is your
> problem
> > any different than missionary work and other
> religions
> > on earth?
>
>
> This particular option, "once for all", is what I
> assumed was the party
> line. If that is the case it seems problematic
> because it presupposes some
> sort of preferential status to earth bound homo
> sapiens overagainst the ET's
> of the universe.
Well, only if 1) the aliens have sinned and are in
need of redemption, and 2) news of the redemptive act
of Jesus is the only way that redemption can be
communicated.
As was noted I think by D.F. Siemens in his post, it
is possible that there may be a totally different
approach to salvation that may be used there,
preserving the once and for all aspect of Jesus.
>
> > The other relationship to Gods on other worlds
> view is
> > one that has been suggested by theologians like
> E.L.
> > Mascall in his 1956 Bampton Lectures. He believed
> > that if there were other parts of the universe
> where
> > rational beings have sinned and are in need of
> > redemption (something that your fragility seems to
> > assume) that the second person of the Trinity
> either
> > has or will some day unite his divine Person to
> their
> > nature as occured in Jesus of Nazareth.
>
>
> This seems more reasonable. I do wonder how
> compelling this would be to
> critical thinking individuals. For instance, is it
> essential that there is
> only "one" Christ per planet or can there be more
> that one? What about
> solar systems, do they need one "Christ" per planet
> or is one per solar
> system enough? Also is the salvation attained by
> the death of a specific
> Christ localize to that planet or is it more global?
These discussions seem akin to the scholastic debates
on a similar issue -- you can play the same game with
Jesus. Could the Incarnation taken the form of a
cucumber, etc. Such questioning in trying to
understand the incarnation did take place in
scholasticism. Somehow, we don't much care about
those debates in theology any more.
I think the simple answer is that you cannot look at
salvation as a mechanistic sort of thing that you can
describe like physics. I can hypothesize any number
of answers to these questions, but would have to say
that I obviously don't know. These questions shift
the ground.... usually the ground under which the
first question arises -- what about ETs are they saved
by Jesus? Is a way of being tendentious that shows
ignorance of christian theology. The first answer is
that the revelation we have of God is for mankind and
it may be fruitfully shared with any other sentient
life we might meet who may or may not be need in
salvation. The second answer I think is that the
question often confuses Jesus as the historical person
we know as the eternal Word of God, the Son, the
Second Person of the Trinity. The two are one in
Jesus of Nazareth, but when you think of the cosmic
action of Jesus, one is really also thinking about the
cosmic action of the Word of God, and that it is the
Second Person of the Trinity through which *all*
creation relates to God. So, we have a category error
of sorts -- if we focuse too much on Jesus of
Nazareth, the Christ as the historical person -- which
He is -- and forget the Word of God -- which He also
is, we become confused. When you think of the
salvific action of the Second Person of the Trinity it
opens up the possibilities more clearly and also
avoids the rather tendentious arguments made by
atheists along these lines of Jesus hopping all over
the universe. In one sense it is true, but not in the
trivial and ignorant sense in which the comment is
often made.
Third, the salvific actions one might expect as a
result, even if in multiple incarnations, will vary
according to the nature of the ETs and what their
relationship to God and to one another should be. One
would hypothesize that whatever salvific action occurs
will be effective in the way it is intended. I
suppose we could hypothesize all sorts of different
scenarios and speculate -- but since there is only
one incarnation for human beings, one would expect
should an incarnation be necessary for some other
species that one would be effective as well for them.
Perhaps in some areas where more than one sentient
species exists, one evangelizes to another, who knows?
But, this takes the question the further step from
its intended effect, which is "well, wouldn't ETs
throw a spanner into the works of christianity?" The
answer is "no" and here's a bunch of reasons why.
To come back and demand an explication of how
salvation occurs for species we dont know about is
like asking why Genesis doesn't spell out the human
genome -- it is a Carl Sagan-esque expectation for a
"valid" religion -- i.e., one that tells us hidden
facts about the most important thing to Carl Sagan,
science. Even if there are multiple incarnations or
multiple salvific acts, the one that is important for
us -- until we meet some other species that has
something to tell us about God -- is Jesus of
Nazareth. We have to profess humble, but
understandable ignorance on what for salvific action
by the Second Person of the Trinity may take in other
galaxies. But the basic answer is that ETs and their
religion poses no real concern for the rationality of
christianity.
> I promise I'm not
> trying to be obnoxious about this. It just seems to
> me that the cascading
> of questions like this borders on the ridiculous.
>
> I guess the critical question in all this is this
> notion that a *particular*
> unique life is essential for salvation. When that
> is posited, and ET is out
> there, the strange extrapolations mount.
Yes, I think when one sees Jesus of Nazareth just as
an historical person, without also seeing Him as the
Word of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, the
confusion mounts.
> Personally I have no problem associating the life of
> Jesus as an important
> revelation of God or the Word. I just don't think
> that a life like that is
> unique even to this planet. Most assuredly the ET's
> out there have a sense
> of God as well. And I would suggest they also have
> exemplars of a communion
> with the sacred. If Christianity can embraces that
> view of Jesus I think it
> has a much better chance of being compelling in the
> coming centuries.
I see no reason why it can't understand that other
sentient races would presumably have experiences of
God and that those experiences of God are by virtue,
in Christian understanding, of the Second Person of
the Trinity. And it is through the Second Person that
salvation and redempetion occurs -- of all creation
and that it is possible that it may be or have been
necessary for the Second Person of the Trinity to
unite His divine person with the nature of other
rational beings.
> God be with you and yours in the hurricane,
> Steve Petermann
>
Thanks.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 18 2003 - 17:14:53 EDT