Life on Mars

[seanD]

Suppose hypothetically discoveries of life on Mars are made, either life existing now or signs of life sometime in the past. What explanation will you as a Christian come up with?

[Cow Poke]

Suppose hypothetically discoveries of life on Mars are made, either life existing now or signs of life sometime in the past. What explanation will you as a Christian come up with?

Why do we need to explain it?

[Zeta_Metroid]

Well one of the predictions of the Flood model that I subscribe to, the Hydroplate Theory, is that the Flood likely transported methane-producing bacteria to Mars. See here to read more about that.

If we found bacteria like this and sequenced their genes, then we'd undoubtedly find them to be very similar to Earth bacteria. So the explanation I would give is that this is a big boost to the Hydroplate Theory!

Also note that the recent find that there are likely flows of very salty water on Mars also fits perfectly with another one of the Hydroplate Theory's predictions, which can be read about here.

[seanD]

Why do we need to explain it?

You know why. Christians will wonder why life is/was there since the bible doesn't state God created life anywhere else.

[Cow Poke]

You know why.

No, I really don't.

Christians will wonder why life is/was there since the bible doesn't state God created life anywhere else.

John tells us there are many things Jesus did which are not in the Bible. The MORMONS, on the other hand.....

[rogue06]

Suppose hypothetically discoveries of life on Mars are made, either life existing now or signs of life sometime in the past. What explanation will you as a Christian come up with?

None needed. Why would you think that there should be?

[seanD]

None needed. Why would you think that there should be?

Belief in ToE is less complicated than creation, as literal belief in the Genesis 6 day creation on earth is more precise. Not sure why the reactions seem to be hand waving the issue as though I were an atheist or something. I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just curious what explanations there would be from a Christian perspective, specifically those that believe Genesis creation is literal. If you don't have an answer or don't want to answer then there's no need to reply.

[Cerebrum123]

Belief in ToE is less complicated than creation, as literal belief in the Genesis 6 day creation on earth is more precise. Not sure why the reactions seem to be hand waving the issue as though I were an atheist or something. I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just curious what explanations there would be from a Christian perspective, specifically those that believe Genesis creation is literal. If you don't have an answer or don't want to answer then there's no need to reply.

Unless you are a TE this topic probably fits better in Applied Protology given your intended audience.

[Cow Poke]

Belief in ToE is less complicated than creation, as literal belief in the Genesis 6 day creation on earth is more precise. Not sure why the reactions seem to be hand waving the issue as though I were an atheist or something.

Ummmm..... if it's "hand waving", it's just because it's of no importance.

I'm not trying to be combative,

me too

I'm just curious what explanations there would be from a Christian perspective, specifically those that believe Genesis creation is literal. If you don't have an answer or don't want to answer then there's no need to reply.

I have an answer: It doesn't matter.

[rogue06]

Belief in ToE is less complicated than creation, as literal belief in the Genesis 6 day creation on earth is more precise. Not sure why the reactions seem to be hand waving the issue as though I were an atheist or something. I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just curious what explanations there would be from a Christian perspective, specifically those that believe Genesis creation is literal. If you don't have an answer or don't want to answer then there's no need to reply.

An acceptance of evolution really has nothing to do with whether there could be life on other planets. I know a bunch of OEC and even a couple of YECs that don't have a problem with the concept.

And I'll reiterate, from a Christian perspective I really don't think that any explanation is necessary any more than a Christian explanation is needed for the existence of extrasolar planets. Why should it?

[seanD]

Well one of the predictions of the Flood model that I subscribe to, the Hydroplate Theory, is that the Flood likely transported methane-producing bacteria to Mars. See here to read more about that.

If we found bacteria like this and sequenced their genes, then we'd undoubtedly find them to be very similar to Earth bacteria. So the explanation I would give is that this is a big boost to the Hydroplate Theory!

Also note that the recent find that there are likely flows of very salty water on Mars also fits perfectly with another one of the Hydroplate Theory's predictions, which can be read about here.

Thanks, ZM. This is the type of reply I'm interested in.

[Cow Poke]

I was wondering if somebody would bring up John 10:16. I have heard a few times somebody suggest that the "other sheep" are people on different planets.

[KingsGambit]

The key question here would be not why God would allow it to happen (God does what he wants) but how we would relate to the life from a spiritual perspective. In theology, it's generally accepted (I think) that animals don't have souls. Thus, we read stories about gorillas and monkeys learning to communicate with humans and don't consider whether they can accept the gospel. If hypothetically we came across an alien species that could talk to us, these questions would come up.

This was the question that Pope Francis addressed awhile ago when he said that he would be willing to share the gospel with an alien.

[Zeta_Metroid]

In theology, it's generally accepted (I think) that animals don't have souls.

Its not, and where that absurd idea comes from in the general population is beyond me. Everything it says about humans having a soul is says about animals as well.

Genesis 7:15 states that "Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark." This is exactly what Genesis 2:7 says when it says that God breathed "the breath of life" into Adam.

Further, look at what Genesis 1:30 says: "And to every kind of animal of the earth and to every bird of heaven, and to everything that moves upon the earth which is living…"

The Hebrew phrase in Genesis 1:30 translated as "is living" is "chay nephesh", according to Strong’s here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...#s=t_conc_1030. Those are the same words used later when it says of Adam in Genesis 2:7 that after receiving the breath of life he "became a living soul", according to here: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...OTpdf/gen2.pdf.

So any argument for animals not having souls would have to argue that humans don't either.

[Adrift]

Its not, and where that absurd idea comes from in the general population is beyond me. Everything it says about humans having a soul is says about animals as well.

Genesis 7:15 states that "Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark." This is exactly what Genesis 2:7 says when it says that God breathed "the breath of life" into Adam.

Further, look at what Genesis 1:30 says: "And to every kind of animal of the earth and to every bird of heaven, and to everything that moves upon the earth which is living…"

The Hebrew phrase in Genesis 1:30 translated as "is living" is "chay nephesh", according to Strong’s here: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...#s=t_conc_1030. Those are the same words used later when it says of Adam in Genesis 2:7 that after receiving the breath of life he "became a living soul", according to here: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...OTpdf/gen2.pdf.

So any argument for animals not having souls would have to argue that humans don't either.

It's a bit complicated, but some people (and this is based on scriptural examples) conflate the words "soul" and "spirit". So when they're referring to "soul" they're not referring to "breath-life" (at least, not in every context), which is what the passages you cited do, they're referring to the image of God that his wholly unique to mankind. If it helps, some people divide humanity's nature into three parts: body, soul, and spirit. Body being the flesh, blood, and bone. Soul being the breath-life, that which animates us, and perhaps even is the seat of the emotions and consciousness. And spirit, that part of us that is uniquely God-like, that divides us from the rest of the animal kingdom, that allows us to come into communication with God's spirit. For those who only use the identifiers "body" and "soul", body incorporates both the flesh and the breath-life, while soul (again, depending on context) refers to the image of God (though sometimes it can refer to breath-life).

Hopefully that's helpful. I cited Professor Ben Witherington on this before in the What Constitutes a Person Thread some time back,

Source: Paul's Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph by Ben Witherington

Paul uses the term pneuma of the human spirit sparingly. Normally pneuma means Holy Spirit in Paul. First Corinthians 14:14 (32?) speaks about "my spirit," and in 14:15 spirit and mind are contrasted. Some have suggested, however, that spirit here refers to something God gives the Christian, not something inherent in human nature (i.e., the spiritual agency that activates gifts). Against this, however, Paul speaks only of the Holy Spirit in these terms, not my "spirit." Further, 2 Cor. 7:1 speaks of defilers of the spirit and of the flesh. It is hard to see how one could defile the Holy Spirit, but the human spirit is another matter. Thus spirit seems to refer to a part of one's being that involves the suprarational or noncognitive aspects of human experience--broadly speaking, that which goes beyond the material and empirical. Paul, however, does not seem to see the human "spirit" as a material part of a person. We can only conjecture that he associates it perhaps with something like the image of God in humanity, that which makes possible relationships and communion with God, who is Spirit.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Paul's Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry of Tragedy and Triumph by Ben Witherington

Paul uses the term psuche sparingly as well, and its cognate psuchikos. It clearly does not mean soul for Paul. Thus, for instance at Romans 1, quoting the Old Testament, he uses psuche in its Old Testament sense of life or self (the Hebrew nephesh). So too at Rom. 16:4 Paul speaks of those who risked their "lives" for his life (similarly at Phil. 2:30). In 1 Cor. 15:45 in the Old Testament quotation, Adam is said to become a living being (a living psuche). At times then, the term psuche is simply synonymous with human being (cf. Rom. 2:9; 13:1), without stress on one's being alive, though that is necessarily implied. First Thessalonians 5:23 has sometimes been used to argue that Paul had a trichotomous view of human nature: body, soul, spirit. Against this, however, psuche likely means here the life principle that animates the body. Psuchikos as an adjective is used by Paul in its normal sense to mean physical (just the opposite of soul) or natural, or possibly even unspiritual (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14; 15:44, 46). This term describes the natural human being (i.e., a person without the Holy Spirit) over against a person who has the spirit.

© Copyright Original Source