Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Quotation Of The Day: The Strangest Illogic You'll Read On The Internet Today Edition

From Ken Ham:
And I do believe there can’t be other intelligent beings in outer space because of the meaning of the gospel. You see, the Bible makes it clear that Adam’s sin affected the whole universe. This means that any aliens would also be affected by Adam’s sin, but because they are not Adam’s descendants, they can’t have salvation. One day, the whole universe will be judged by fire, and there will be a new heavens and earth. God’s Son stepped into history to be Jesus Christ, the “Godman,” to be our relative, and to be the perfect sacrifice for sin—the Savior of mankind.
Jesus did not become the “GodKlingon” or the “GodMartian”!  Only descendants of Adam can be saved.  God’s Son remains the “Godman” as our Savior.  In fact, the Bible makes it clear that we see the Father through the Son (and we see the Son through His Word).  To suggest that aliens could respond to the gospel is just totally wrong.

12 comments:

Kurt Evans said...

I've met Ken Ham. He's a great guy. In the above quotation he was apparently using the phrase "intelligent beings" in a way that excluded animals and animal-like creatures.

Granting Ken's openly stated premise that the Bible is true, I'm not seeing any "illogic" here.

Kal Lis said...

Kurt,

Thanks for stopping by. Good luck at Libertarian convention on Saturday.

I have no problem taking the Bible as true. We will save a discussion about the difference between truth and fact for a later date.

To commit theology without a license,

Ham does not posit a theoretical multi-verse; therefore, angels and demons must also part of the universe. Satan's rebellion pre-dates Eden. That rebellion as I understand it was sin. Those that didn't rebel don't seem to have no need of salvation.

It seems, therefore, beings existed prior to Adam who had no need of salvation even after Adam because they didn't rebel.

I have no way of knowing whether otherworldly corporal species were created prior to humans, did not rebel, and therefore share the same possibility of not being tainted. Neither does Ham.

It is as possible that humans are loved by God in the same way that the prodigal was loved by his father and that the ultimate sacrifice was made to save the human race but other races did not need it.

The Bible is totally silent on the subject of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. I take Isaiah 55:8-9 literally,

"8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

We all need to say "I don't know" more often.

Ham extrapolated eternal damnation from an assumed fact not in evidence. That seems the height of illogic.


P&R said...

To commit theology with a license...

1) It is a dangerous thing to say what cannot be. The divine being we Christians refer to as "God" in English is very big - infinite, we say - and there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in Ham's (or my) theology.

1.a) It is conceivable that Adam's sin affected all humanity and that "all creation" groans under its effects AND that there are human beings on other planets or in other galaxies.

1.b) It is conceivable that, on other worlds, the same drama played out as on this one - a progenitor who sinned and a series of redemptive acts by God suitable to those beings.

As you say, he is assuming as fact things not in evidence, but also ignoring some facts that are quite the reverse. As illogic goes, I'm not sure it's the height, but it's a fair distance up that hill.

Kal Lis said...

PNR,

Points taken both on grace being necessary elsewhere and on use of "height of."

Nice Shakespeare allusion.

Kurt Evans said...

"Kal Lis" wrote:
>"Good luck at Libertarian convention on Saturday."

Thank you.

>"Ham does not posit a theoretical multi-verse; therefore, angels and demons must also part of the universe."

No, by that rationale God would also have to be part of the universe.

>"Satan's rebellion pre-dates Eden."

God put Adam in Eden when He made him and before He made Eve, and "all that He had made" was still "very good" after He made Adam and Eve. Eden predates Satan's rebellion.

>"It seems, therefore, beings existed prior to Adam who had no need of salvation even after Adam because they didn't rebel."

I'm not sure the Bible says whether angels were created before or after Adam, but in any case they're not subject to Adam's curse because they're not part of the physical universe over which God gave man dominion.

>"I have no way of knowing whether otherworldly corporal species were created prior to humans, did not rebel, and therefore share the same possibility of not being tainted."

The word "otherworldly" is ambiguous, but I'm assuming you mean extraterrestrial. The entire universe is tainted because of Adam's sin, including any theoretical extraterrestrial corporal species.

>"Neither does Ham."

There's no way you could possibly know that Ken doesn't know.

>"It is as possible that humans are loved by God in the same way that the prodigal was loved by his father and that the ultimate sacrifice was made to save the human race but other races did not need it."

No, if we're granting the premise that the Bible is true, that's not possible.

>"The Bible is totally silent on the subject of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe."

Maybe it's a hint. :)

>"We all need to say 'I don't know' more often."

Actually some people say it too often.

>"Ham extrapolated eternal damnation from an assumed fact not in evidence. That seems the height of illogic."

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but Ken's statement about the universe being judged by fire comes directly from the Bible (2 Peter 3:7).

Kurt Evans said...

"P&R" wrote:
>"It is conceivable that, on other worlds, the same drama played out as on this one - a progenitor who sinned and a series of redemptive acts by God suitable to those beings."

There are many Bible passages addressing the absolute uniqueness of both Adam and Christ. The fact that other possibilities are "conceivable" is no basis for condemning Ken as illogical.

>"... [Ken] is assuming as fact things not in evidence, but also ignoring some facts that are quite the reverse. As illogic goes, I'm not sure it's the height, but it's a fair distance up that hill."

I'm wondering what facts you believe Ken is ignoring.

Kal Lis said...

Kurt,

I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around an "unfallen" serpent lying to Eve in Eden.

I thought "otherworldly" and extra-terrestrial in this context were synonyms. However, I probably should have used "species" instead "races." I will blame my misspent youth of reading comic books and science fiction which used the term "alien races."

I also stand by the statement that certain things including whether extraterrestrials exist and whether they need or are eligible for grace are unknowable unless one is God. I know Ham is not God, so he can't know.

As for not knowing or saying "I don't know," when I was a young'un, the we sang a hymn with the lyric "I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able. . ." Romans 8 uses the word "persuaded" in the KJV as well. I am persuaded on many spiritual things but that persuasion does not equate to the belief being fact even though I will likely present it as certain such because I am a fallen human who does fallen human things like exhibit too much pride far too often.

Therefore, I will phrase my position as follows: I remain persuaded that it's illogical to state that any extraterrestrial beings that may exist are fallen and not redeemable.

I probably should have written a shorter comment and said that I stand with what PNR wrote in his first paragraph and then added that my finite mind doesn't deal well with infinite omniscience or omnipotence.

Kurt Evans said...

"Kal Lis" wrote:
>"I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around an 'unfallen' serpent lying to Eve in Eden."

I didn't say Satan lied to Eve before he fell. I said Eden existed before he fell.

>"I also stand by the statement that certain things including whether extraterrestrials exist and whether they need or are eligible for grace are unknowable unless one is God."

And I stand by the statement that there's no way you could possibly know that.

Kal Lis said...

Kurt,

One last question, do you and Bob Newland engage in this sort of theological discussions at Libertarian gatherings?

Kurt Evans said...

"Kal Lis" wrote:
>"One last question, do you and Bob Newland engage in this sort of theological discussions at Libertarian gatherings?"

Hahahahahahaha!!!

No, Bob seems to be about as interested in Christianity as I am in pot. Pretty much all we have in common is our disdain for intrusive government, but thanks for the laugh. :)

P&R said...

To answer your objections, Kurt,

1) The uniqueness of Adam and Jesus Christ do not preclude the possibility of equally unique extra-terrestrial progenitors and divine redeemers. For example, I also am unique. That uniqueness does not mean there are no other human beings. So also, a unique human who is Adam does not mean there is not a unique, sentient, spiritual being elsewhere. The uniqueness of Jesus does not mean God could not also join his nature to the nature of that other being to be a unique redeemer of this other fallen race.

Do I think it likely? No. Do I think it possible? Yes. Do I know what God is up to beyond what he has positively revealed to us? Nope, which gets to...

2) The primary facts he is ignoring are: (a) God is infinite; his ways not ours; his thoughts beyond ours, and (b) He cannot know what God is thinking that is beyond him (that is, Ham) - if he knew it, it wouldn't be beyond him.

Kurt Evans said...

"P&R" wrote:
>>"It is conceivable that, on other worlds, the same drama played out as on this one - a progenitor who sinned and a series of redemptive acts by God suitable to those beings.

I wrote:
>"There are many Bible passages addressing the absolute uniqueness of both Adam and Christ."

"P&R" wrote:
>>"The uniqueness of Adam and Jesus Christ do not preclude the possibility of equally unique extra-terrestrial progenitors and divine redeemers."

We obviously disagree, but thanks for addressing the point directly.

>>"The primary facts [Ken] is ignoring are: (a) God is infinite; his ways not ours; his thoughts beyond ours, and (b) He cannot know what God is thinking that is beyond him (that is, Ham) - if he knew it, it wouldn't be beyond him."

I'm confident Ken isn't ignoring those facts, as he cites both of them often in his speeches and writings. You and Ken (and I) have apparently reached different conclusions about whether the uniqueness of Adam and Christ precludes the possibility of similar progenitors and redeemers, but I still don't see any legitimate basis for condemning Ken (or me) as illogical.