Featured Little Green Men

Is there a rebuttal in there somewhere?

Puts the Cross at the center of the universe, actually.

 

Hee hee hee.

Let me ask you a question. Are we told the purpose of the heavenly bodies or not?

 

I knew you wouldn't answer. So I will. Yes, we are told the purpose of the heavenly bodies. "To give light upon the earth" Genesis 1:7. Anything you can see in the sky was made for the purpose of viewing from earth.

Not sure where this is coming from, but I'll play...they are the sun, moon and stars. Paul is using them to illustrate a spiritual phenomenon as he used corn and wheat seeds. Why? Do you think they are angels? Maybe we should discuss the Resurrection in another thread.

 

Van, you're nuts. Do you have some pet little theory about little green men that is threatened by science and faith?

 

One of the main arguments for life elsewhere in this universe (and angels aren't part of this universe) is not a scientific argument, but a moral one. It's too proud and self-centered of us to think that God cares only for us. He has love to spare. Who are we to think that we are the center of His purposes?

The humble view; the open-minded and informed view, the view of the virtuous, compels us to allow for God's children on other worlds. Any other view, well that's just narrow and self-centered; sinful.

Atheists don't offer any argument that is any different either. Copernicus knocked us off our high horse. We don't know it all. We aren't the center of the universe. This is the superior notion.

Again, philosophical and moral arguments. Not scientific ones. Oh...they do offer the proper genuflections to the gods of Relativity as a show, but they aren't really being scientific, otherwise they would understand that that cosmology actually allows one to assume that the earth occupies the very center of mass of the universe and is motionless in space. No, their arguments are not scientific. They are mere virtue-signaling.

They are right about one thing, and that is that the idea we are alone in the universe is based upon a huge presupposition, and that presupposition is that the Scriptures are true.

Not belaboring the point that a straightforward reading of the narrative in Genesis chapter one puts the waters under the expanse in the center of all creation, and that those waters aren't scattered through out the universe, but are gathered into one place, and that it was in this place that dry land appeared, and in which God placed mankind, but the narrative seems to also want to drive home the fact that everything God placed in the expanse was also for the purpose of the earth. The sun, moon and stars (which includes planets) were placed "to give light upon the earth."

Then in addition, there is the repeated phrase "under the whole heaven," meaning universal.

The account of pausing the motions of the heavenly bodies so that Joshua could win a war on earth.

The moving backward of the same for the sake of a faithful King of Judah.

The Star of Bethlehem.

But the greatest evidence of the centrality of the earth in God's purpose for the universe is the work that Christ accomplished, and by which He earned His Name and Title. He didn't do that on Mars. Neither did He take a Bride from Andromeda.

Jussayin.

It belittles the Work of the King of Heaven, to think that the Cross was something not universally necessary to beget Children of God. Notice that word "beget." We are begotten of God. Though Luke calls Adam the son of God, Adam was not begotten. He was made. We are partakers of the divine nature. That is never said of Adam even in his innocence.

The Cross is relegated to a contingency; something God had to do to fix things so His primary objective could be accomplished. And so far from the feigned humility of those pretending not to think of themselves as the center of the universe, they assert themselves the center of God's purposes the whole time, and not His Son.

But once one sees that the Cross was the reason for Creation, and that the work of Redemption is that by which Christ gets His name and authority, it is a humbling thing indeed...for the elect. So far from exalting ourselves by denying the existence of little green men, we exalt Christ, the Heir of "all things." And who are joint heirs with Him?

No Martian.

 

We can argue about what Relativity says about the speed of light in another thread. How does the impossibility of interstellar travel support your notion of the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe?

 

Relativity isn't the linchpin in the argument against interstellar travel. Newtonian Physics doesn't offer any hope either. So it's pointless to argue about the supposed speed limit of the universe.

You're the one avoiding questions, and you offer nothing of substance in your arguments; just a presupposition of silence and your personal notions about what the words "heaven" and "creation" may mean in certain places.

And it's not merely about the possibility of a microbe here or there, or even a reptile. You're about "children of god" elsewhere in the universe (#13), and you automatically indict one who would argue with you of the sin of pride.

You seem to have a lot invested in keeping this door open. One wonders what it could be.

 

Genesis 1:17 , rather.

 

doesn't offer any hope for interstellar travel either, that is.