Sound reasoning is a good basis for religious beliefs, wouldn't you say? So what about this example? It's from the first 2011 issue of Answers magazine from those geniuses at Answers in Genesis:
Because Adam's sin affected the whole universe, it would also affect any alien. But as nonhumans, aliens would not be eligible for salvation (this is one reason we are confident that intelligent aliens do not exist). So baptizing an alien would be pointless at best, and a mockery at worst. Jesus did not die for Martians—only descendants of Adam can be saved.See? Simple, isn't it?
So is Ken Ham, who offers this profound observation:
Secular astronomers claim that the universe evolved slowly over billions of years. But this conclusion does not come from the facts they see but from the assumptions they must make to interpret the unseen past. This issue of Answers, written by leading creation astronomers, shows how the facts actually line up with God's account of a recent creation but can't be explained by evolution over billions of years.Ken's tight reasoning suffers only from prolixity. I can help him shorten his statement by removing excess words. For example, for “secular astronomers” read “astronomers.” For “creation astronomers,” read “cranks.”
All better now.
Posts
9 comments:
"...as nonhumans, aliens would not be eligible for salvation..."
By similar logic, a devout Christian's beloved companion cat, dog, bird or other non-human would, like aliens, be ineligible for heaven. So if someone's beloved pet couldn't accompany him or her to heaven, wouldn't that turn heaven into a hell for such an animal lover?
Quick! Another axiom's needed here.
But Jesus, in his infinite mercy, could give you a pet from heaven's pet shop that would be every bit as good as your original animal companion. And wouldn't you love your replacement pet if Jesus really wanted you to? (Or would you rather go to hell, which is where people who displease Jesus have to go?) So just smile and pet Sparky II on the head. (Or else.)
See? It all makes sense.
They wouldn't say that E.T. goes to Hell -- they'd simply deny that he had an immortal soul at all. If they weren't busy denying his existence first.
Amongst other things, it was bad logic like this drove me away from the YEC I was raised in once I learned to think.
"Because Adam's sin affected the whole universe, it would also affect any alien. But as nonhumans, aliens would not be eligible for salvation (this is one reason we are confident that intelligent aliens do not exist)."
Cause here is how I would have responded:
Why would Adam's sin have affected the whole universe and not just his descendents or just the earth?
What if an alien "Adam" sinned like the human Adam? Couldn't there have been another "Jesus" for the aliens?
In fact, I did ask questions of that nature until it was made clear to me that my questions were .... unwelcome.
I find the faulty logic of creationists more of an affront than I do their poor grasp of facts. It is one thing to reason logically from a flawed premise. It is quite another to reason illogically regardless of the the premise.
Sound reasoning is a good basis for religious beliefs, wouldn't you say?
In my experience, sound reasoning tends to be detrimental to religious beliefs. Being ridiculous seems to be a part of the definition of "religion" (other than one's own, of course).
That was sort of my point, arensb.
I thought they'd at least rise to the level of "ET, doesn't exist, therefore its salvation is irrelevant." Perhaps declaring off the bat that fictional characters don't exist is bad form in a religious context?
Monado inquires:
"Perhaps declaring off the bat that fictional characters don't exist is bad form in a religious context?"
Wouldn't that tend to get in the way of such deep questions as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"? LOL!
Ah, but creating something in order to damn it to hell seems pretty much in keeping with the Christian god many of his followers describe and worship.
Post a Comment