Date: Tue Sep 23 2003 - 07:31:35 EDT
In a message dated 9/22/03 4:28:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Dr. Nelson wrote:
> > I did anything but merely pass off your questions, but
> > tried (apparently not to your satisfaction) to address
> > all of them.
> Okay. Here goes: In what follows I'm assuming that there is some *concrete*
> salvic benefit incurred by the incarnation of the second person of the
> trinity, life, death and resurrection of Jesus here on earth. I'm also
> assuming that it would rather arrogant of us to assume that the salvation of
> all ET's everywhere were dependent on what happened on this planet. So, if
> there turns out to be ET's out there:
> 1) Is another incarnation, life, death and resurrection of the second person
> of the trinity necessary for their salvation? Or at least an incarnation at
> some point in the planet's history?
> 2) Is there a limited scope to any particular salvic scheme? Country?
> World? Solar system? Galaxy?
> 3) If I move from one planet to another, am I covered by the salvic scheme
> of my previous planet or the new one?
> 4) If there can be different salvic schemes on different planets does that
> mean that there can be different salvic schemes on this planet as well, say
> by another religion in another part of the world or can there only be one
> salvic scheme per planet?
> 5) Assuming that ET's may be very different than us, is salvation species
> specific? In other words if there are more than one sentient species on a
> planet, does the second person of the trinity have to incarnate in each?
> That should be enough. I know it sounds like I'm just trying to be
> obnoxious but that's not it at all. It was around this very issue that I
> came to reject the "concrete" idea of the Christ. That does not, however,
> mean I reject the symbol of the incarnation, cross and resurrection. Can
> Christianity survive without a concrete Christ?
> Steve Petermann
This is a non-issue - see logic below. The question can Christianity
survive without a concrete Christ? requires clarification. What is meant by
There is one salvific scheme 'period' if indeed you are talking about the
self sacrifice. If you're not talking about the self sacrifice, you're not
talking about religion anyway.
The ontology of the self sacrifice is a redemption available to any self
conscious life form with free will. That's not a metaphor. It's in the vedas,
Buddhism, the OT and the NT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 23 2003 - 07:31:55 EDT