Why do some Christians say life cannot exist elsewhere?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, the issue is that there are passages indicate the idea that a person at a great enough height could see everything. The issue is that this is complete nonsense if one doesn't hold to a flat earth.

The other link I posted later actually does a better job.
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... verse.html

It provides this picture given by a scholar about the Hebrew view of the world.


The notion that the Hebrew view of the world is flat means that if the Christians view the Hebrew revelations as valid and acceptable, that rationally there is no reason this wouldn't apply to views on the nature of the Earth. After all, in Matthew 4:8 it says "Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory." the issue is that this tends to suggest that Matthew was a flat-earther, as a very high mountain shouldn't be able to show all of the kingdoms of the world, and taking Jesus on a tall mountain just for no reason, is pointless.


I know that early Christianity was a "hotbed" of theological confusion and contention. The issue is that EVERY denomination today that is not considered in some form or fashion heretical is concerned with the early church. The Protestants find it through the Scriptures, and the Orthodox and Catholics find it through scriptures and the Church Fathers. And the reasoning is that there is a greater closeness of the early church to the original revelation. You haven't really refuted that by saying that there were conflicts, and unless you are going to promote an ad hoc progressive revelation where Christianity could potentially become *anything*, or deny the existence of a real Christianity, we have to regard Christianity as a revealed religion and look towards the time of the revelation(s) to understand the meaning. This means, the early Church would have to be a matter of great study, either their scriptures (as the Protestants seek) or their great teachers. (as Catholics and Orthodox people seek)

I don't see a real reason to take a Christianity that is whatever you want it to be seriously. The religion is based upon historical facts and writings.

Umm.... explicit contradiction isn't required for something to be "alien". In order to be "alien" it just must lack things suggesting it. Now, the issue is that nothing even comes close to suggesting the matter.

Yes, 15 CENTURIES LATER! Think about how many people DIED and how many NEW ideas came up during those 15 years? A large number. So.... pointing to these thinkers is kind of irrelevant, as unless they are moving from Scripture, it could be derived from some other source, like the science or the philosophy of a given point in time. As Christianity didn't kill philosophy or science, and it didn't entirely consume them either,(although it sought to) so saying that these Christians believed X doesn't say much. I could use that same principle to prove that medicine is bad(Christian Science), that the darkness of one's skin is a result of one's ancestors and that there was an Israelite tribe that moved to America(Mormons), that Ethiopia is heaven and marijuana is good(Rastafarianism), etc.... but each of those positions isn't really derived from Christianity and likely against it despite the fact that all of these views are MORE theologically oriented than the 3 philosophers who come to the conclusion you are trying to bring up.

You still haven't convinced me that this was the view held by the majority of early Christians. As for the verse in Mathhew, it can be argued that he really meant "all the kingdoms of the inhabited or civilized world". For in the uninhabited part of the world there wouldn't be any need for kings, would there? The issue whether there was any life on the part of the world that couldn't theoretically be seen from a mountain top (i.e., the entire southern hemisphere) was a different issue from that of the earth's shape. In fact, there is evidence that most believers in a spherical earth at the same time were skeptical as to whether "antipodes" (beings living on the opposite side of the sphere) could exist, leaving at least half of the earth uninhabited. St Augustine, among others, seems to have held this view.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt whether there really existed, at any point in history, something like an "early Church", i.e., something distinct from Jesus and his immediate followers and pupils, and something signifying more than the sum of an infinitely fragmented set of opinions, doctrines, and practices. I'm even more skeptical as to the ability of later denominations to uncover the properties of this hypothetical "early Church", lacking as they are in both historical and cultural context (we'll never be 1st Century Jews or Greeks or Romans) and in truly reliable, non-contradictory first-hand accounts of Jesus and his actions.

Briefly, I find the notion of an "early Church" as representing the "true" teachings of Christ both theologically and historically invalid.

So, you insist that the passage has to mean in His physical image? Then which men did He make in His image? Caucasians? Asians? Blacks? Bald men, hairy men, men who can't grow beards? Tutsi giants, or Himalayan shorties? Pacific Islanders? Australian aborigines, perhaps?

Sorry, but there's too much variety in even the appearance of humans for that argument to hold water. Try again.

Umm.... I didn't say anything about PHYSICAL image. The issue is that even if we move to PSYCHOLOGICAL image in some form or fashion, then we still end up losing out because creatures that are intelligent and psychologically like man are likely rare as well. The issue is that there has to be some "image bearing", and we could argue that God *could* but what's the point of creating this thing? It ends up being the same as something God already has, it decreases the specialness of man which is pointed to in scripture, it has essentially no scriptural support and the absence is almost evidence against it, it causes all sorts of issues with the atonement, with the fall, the relationship of Satan to creation, and so on, making all of these issues even more complicated for no gain. I mean, under a theistic hypothesis, this kind of idea just creates all sorts of problems, and thus is reasonable to reject.

To go even further, that isn't a good argument against the position I am not holding. I mean, what man do stick figures represent? Caucasians? Asians? Blacks? Bald men? Hairy men? Men who can't grow beards? Tutsi giants? Himalayan shorties? Pacific Islanders? Australian aborigines? Well.... the answer is that all of these men are physiologically similar enough that they all share the same basic form that is represented in a stick figure. So, even if I defended this position that I don't, it still wouldn't be a good argument.

DAT BECOZ DE BAH-BUL DEL ME SO!

obviously because man is the SpEcIaL creation, why we can wipe are arses and build things. i'd like to see a horse do that! omg

Horses are much better designed than humans since their anuses are automatically clean and they probably are not as upset by politics as much as we are.

you must have seen alot of horse butthole in you're lifetime. i cant say that i have, so i'll take your advice on it. and of course there not into politics, there far to smart for it. although im shure they have some social system, i rarely see a lone horse do it all by himself. but horses rule and i love there ears

I grew up in the 1930's in Brooklyn and there were lots of horses and horses**t all over the place. Now you have to go to Washington D.C. to see much of it and the horses**t, strangely, is produced by other kinds of as*holes.

ok well im happy you let that off of your chest. you must feel better because i know i shure do, now tell me. whats really bothering you?
i hope im not this grumpy when im elderly

I'm not grumpy. I'm trying to educate you. That's known as a helping hand.

oh well my grace, thank you so much! *quirtzes* hopefully when i did that my wig didnt fall at your feet

I don't see the questions as different because we KNOW that there has always been life on the Western Hemisphere. In fact, mankind is spread across the world pretty well and has been for thousands upon thousands of years. Not only that, but if the earth were anything BUT flat it would require a really really tall mountain.

Additionally, if the Christians are inheritors of the Jewish beliefs, which they've made claims to be, and these Jewish beliefs included a belief in a flat earth, then it seems to follow that Christians would also have flat earth-ism.


I am not drawing a distinction between immediate followers and later followers for an "early church" or even an essence, only the notion that there was a historical group that would be considered close to the historical claims of this religion and that this closeness makes them more relevant to the original revelation. In any case, I can understand and appreciate this claim, but a lack of belief in a real early church ultimately dissolves this question to begin with. I usually seek to be more charitable than that, however, if there is no accuracy in the early church to refer back to, then there is no reason to believe that the New Testament or the Church Fathers are solid enough foundations to base anything upon. If this is the case, then there is no real framework on what is truly Christian and what isn't. And so, there is nothing to really talk about here.

I think that for this reason, most Christians except for the more liberal ones stake their beliefs in a real early church. Protestants need accurate transmission of beliefs in order to have their Bible, and the Orthodox and Catholics also trust church fathers, which requires a real early church, or else those figures would have no weight.

It seems you are being sarcastic when I am merely being kind. I'm sorry for you.

this is absolute garbage. but im just returning the favor, you come across as a grumpy, argumentative knowit-all. thanks for your help, but i dont need it because i can figure things out on my own