₦airaland Forum

@mantraa: beautifully crafted point you have there!

If I were to go back in time and see that all I have believed in according to the Bible is falsehood, then I would have one of three choices:

1. Faith in God no matter what I have seen by the future's technology.
2. Faith in the Future's technology
        2a. Believing that it showed me the same past of mankind, and did not instead deviate into an alternate past which did not lead into my present,
        2b. Believing that it is not an illusion designed by someone from the most extreme future in order to steer us off course
3. Try to see where the two of them agree to say the same thing (Faith in both).

Most likely, honestly speaking, my option will be (3) because there is no proof of infallibility of the Time Travel Methods, as far as I know. How do I know that what is being observed is not (in turn) manipulated by some human beings or aliens at the very end of time, say, who have technology that is higher-dimensioned and more advanced than Time Travel, and want to ensure that some things work out in a particular way due to the "discoveries" about man's cradle and afterwards? Maybe to manipulate man's design and experience for their own benefit?

So, since there is no proof of infallibility for Time Travel, and no other proof of Eden, I will have to see where they rationally agree, I suppose.

Option (3) should be it if I live to see that day, unless it can be shown that the Time-travel methods are absolutely incorruptible.

@Tudor:

Is jesus not the son of god? Does that not make them relatives?

The immaculate conception of Jesus is NOT the only reason He was referred to as God's Son. To understand better what I believe sonship is, you can read through this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-369330.32.html#msg5159346

As for the return of Christ, it's not mine to debate.

LovePeddler meets LovePeddler

Lovemoi2, helep me ask am o!

LOL @KennyG

@GEW: it won't make front page 'cos there are not yet enough comments WITHIN the timeframe that the page has existed. Over 200 people have viewed but only few have commented.

GEW makes 15.

So that is 16, counting me too

But seriously, I don't think this idea will work (is working).

@JeSoul and Biina:

Now, THIS is getting interesting. Thanks, Pastor AIO, for the link.

@OP: Good one!

@Tudor: I wasn't the one that insinuated that salvation MAY even be necessary for aliens. Talk to the OP. And God wasn't sending relatives. Go back to your Bible and read carefully. Why am I even responding to you? Time has shown that you are a troublemaker.

@Viaro: I have a private conjecture on aliens and UFOs which is a little bizarre, and if it is true, then it negates my posts on this thread. I want you to consider it with me. I must confess I am not so much of a scientist, so pardon my wrong nomenclature if any.

Assume space and time is continuous, and a certain force (c.f. gravity's downward pull) is what keeps drawing man in the forward time axis. Just like man grappled with gravity for years before aerodynamics was instituted, man will soon discover a way to travel in short bursts through time. Short "backward" bursts in which he can see but can't interact with his past, but he keeps being drawn back into present. Until considerable time-travel is invented and man can travel across time in either direction.

Assume this first time machine invention happens on January 1, 2050.

Thus, January 1, 2050 will be a kind of "terminus" for those travelling from the future into the past. They may travel past that point, but they may not interact with people beyond that point. i.e. say a tourist from the future visits 2009 Georgia. This will be observed in Georgia as a "UFO" but there will be no interaction between the parties, because such interaction will cause the time machine to be built much faster than January 1. 2050 thanks to the transfer of advanced knowledge from the future. (This may be a reason there have not been any recorded exchange with any "UFO".

As from January 1, 2050 when the time machine is invented, tourists from all sorts of future civilizations will arrive to examine Earth, and scientists and tourists from the present will be able to attend to the future as well. This is where my conjecture gets complex. I believe, in this conjecture, that any physical interaction we may have with "aliens" will start occurring from that January 1, 2050. These "aliens" are in fact humans who have undergone varying extra-terrestrial conditions (compare with the formation of diverse human races) such as, for example, a civilization where thanks to some space-wars, the universe became polluted and man had to begin wearing body-suites because flesh will be wasted on contact with the environment. Or civilizations where man had to be modified physically to suit other ambient conditions. Or, say, a group of highly intelligent humans who travelled off into a diverse civilization where only the highly intelligent humans survived, and thus learnt the technology of the future, then returned to the present to implement them, and proceeds to travel into the future to exterminate that OTHER civilization, or something?

My surmise is that if this were the case, from that day that time travel is properly established, there will be all kinds of "aliens" who are spawns of various human civilizations gone wrong (or done right). We can't interact with them yet because there is a "membrane" between us in space and time, and until that membrane is punctured on that hypothetical January 1, 2050, they can only peek through the membrane and see us. They can't come through, and we can see them sometimes if they allow us to (carelessly or voluntarily). In other words, it's still diverse variations of mankind at the end of the day, and not some "aliens", and they would still require salvation. If this was the case, they can return to Adam's point of sin, but they can't prevent it (as I said earlier, they can only observe the past beyond Jan 1, 2050). They would still need the salvation of Jesus in that case.

I hope you understand my case, but it's all conjecture.

P.S. Please this is part content for my upcoming sci-fi novel (excluding the whole salvation gist).

It's (c) Mavenbox 2009. Thanks.

@Tudor: If YOU had asked the question, I won't have framed it that way. But I know DeepSight has the intelligence and objectivity to understand what I meant. Without using many words, I tried to explain my perspective but there you were, armed with prejudice

IF aliens exist, then they do not need the salvation of Jesus, who came in the form of man to save mankind.

Unless of course, God had alternate plans for their own salvation, and He came in the form of one of their own there as well.

What I was trying to say is that, as far as my knowledge of God's Word goes, Jesus was God's plan for salvation for MAN, and not for extra-terrestial species. If at all there are other likewise-sentient species in the universe, and if at all they require salvation, and if at all it is a similar case for man who cannot "save himself" (as the Bible says), then another solution would have been made for them, which I know not. It may be anything ranging from shedding their skin to any unimaginable thing (I have never even seen one, so how do I know? ). When I said "Unless of course, God had alternate plans for their own salvation, and He came in the form of one of their own there as well." I meant that, in THAT case, we would be examining that CHRIST as the author of their salvation IF that was the case, and not man's Christ.

Why you dey even halla my life sef on top conjecture wey nobody sabi anything about? Go siddon abeg.

@DeepSight: No mind him/her jare (LOL it just dawns on me that this is the first time I seem to be using a pronoun for Tudor)

@michelin: I agree, he sounds like a non-English speaker. I don't think he is Nigerian[s], but that picture has been edited. Look carefully at the background. Though I am not saying it's not him anyway.[/s]

Alright! You can edit your real name from my quote o, cos I am doing the same! I don't want to be the reason a stalker found you.

Krayola:
Thanks for all the nice words. My head dey swell like bloum bloum

First impressions are interesting, I was right from scratch: this guy is a wanton comedian.

^^^ I know, Ebila. I said my name is Maven cos you were calling me mavenb0x

@nuclearboy: I no go lie to you o, it may take a while (hours to days) cos that is ONE topic I usually have reservations talking about.

@Krayola:   As I once said, mushrooms all look the same to a novice, but when there's nothing else to eat, it becomes VERY important to know whether the one you are about to eat is poisonous or not!

@SeanT21: Thanks sweetz . Now I get it. I thought the voting session was re-started, so I had to vote again. The message there is misleading.

@manmustwac: Haba! A whole moderator? You are joking, shey? Don't mind me, I am just teasing you

@cuteromntc: No problem, but I must confess I am usually a "man" of my words (permit the expression) so I still insist.

@ebila:   You are welcome, dear. And by the way, my name is Maven!  

@slimes: Glad you like it!

@Krayola: You mean to say that you have stopped debating theology?

@JeSoul: Thanks for the resolution about DeepSight and KunleOshob's beliefs. LOL but I must confess, I don't think DeepSight ever said Ghandi was FIRST in line So let me cover your bases before wahala starts to dey

Sincerely, I think the entire problem surfaces whenever we try splitting hairs between Jesus and The Father, when he has clearly said that "I and the Father are ONE" (John, at 10:30pm ) for which the Jews attempted to stone him, saying he thus made himself God. In this narrow road of understanding HOW God could be in Heaven and yet be manifest in the flesh, a weary traveller without the help of the Holy Spirit can fall into error and heresy.

@Krayola: But I maintain that "Christian" is just a slang for people that can be likened unto Christ. Another abused word. God never called us Christians. He called us His SONS. Other sons in the NT called us Believers. Jesus called us His Brothers, since He is the firstborn.

Answering the OP's question,

IF aliens exist, then they do not need the salvation of Jesus, who came in the form of man to save mankind.

Unless of course, God had alternate plans for their own salvation, and He came in the form of one of their own there as well.

The very fact that it is not clearly inferred in the Bible tells me that God does not really want us overly bothered about it.

Of course, he delights in our quest for knowledge, seeing us discover the universe, the same way a father delights in his child's first words, first steps, and sees how he builds structures with LEGO.

@Viaro: I dont think you understand me, yet. When I speak of relationships, I was referring to unions that are geared towards marriage. Then I compared it to a Christian's union with Christ, also geared towards marriage. If one cannot understand the kind of love that Christ has for the church, he cannot understand the kind of love (relating the spiritual to the physical) that is necessary to have a fulfilled romantic relationship. It seems words often fail me *sigh* Thanks.

LOL in Espanol.

I can't even vote, I am told that I need to login or register

@Nuclearboy: Yes. For instance, a friend, a medical doctor, who was my college friend, asked me some months ago what He ought to do when his girl was misbehaving and just being difficult. As simple as that analogy above is, you can see what he OUGHT to do, in light of how God treats us patiently when we are stubborn and running against his Will. It's dead easy, but for those who try to make things complex, it goes over their heads.

@Viaro:

Did you understand me at all? When I said ANY, I meant it with reference to US who are Christians, not to pre-incarnate saints or Jews or Yisraylites or some aliens in outer space.

THIS is the reason I posted that, by extrapolation:

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Please, understand that when I make posts on Nairaland, I often speak in relation to the understanding of the one that I am replying, and not to everyone. Whoever then does not understand or disagrees, I may attempt to clarify for that one as well. If I could speak one thing and everyone will get their own EXACT PRIVATE interpretation then I guess I may as well be divine

Even YOU cannot make a statement, no matter how simple, and everyone in the world would see it in the same perspective so wetin you dey yarn sef?

@Nuclearboy: English is too weak, jare, my brother.

When I said MY dictionary, I meant the way I understand it from the Bible, and not anything to do with a council who came together around the first century to decide what the Trinity means, which then entered into everyday use!

TRITHEISM means THREE GODS, each one with an independent mind, will, action, purpose & intent. They may agree or disagree on issues, or they may always be in consonance.

TRINITY should mean ONE GOD, with three personas, or perspectives from which He is being observed.

Let's use your dictionary to evaluate the discrepancy:

trin·ity (trin′i tē)

noun pl. trinities -·ties

1. the condition of being three or threefold
2. a set of three persons or things that form a unit
3. Christian Theol. Trinity Sunday

The definition (2) above is what can easily lead many into the fallacies of TRITHEISM, which the Muslims THINK Christians have, and unfortunately some Christians do. This is because PERSON is taken to mean AN INDIVIDUAL, but that is not so. The only way this definition will be correct, with respect to the Bible, is if the PERSON were defined as PERSONA.

These two definitions are from WordWeb

Persona: 1. An actor's portrayal of someone in a play
2. (Jungian psychology) a personal facade that one presents to the world
Person: 1. A human being
2. A human being, usually including the clothing

I hope you get the thin line now?

LOL Guys abeg make una no fight o!

Anyone who wants to read my views on this can find it on https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?action=profile;u=423534;sa=showPosts

It's a long post, though,

@Kristonium: Na wa to you sef.

@DeepSight: Abeg no even carry am joke o, na wetin wan cause me and Krayola 2nd fight be that. I don't joke with such things, they are too weighty. No vex abeg.

@JeSoul: Sister after my own heart.

5. To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane? To who did he cry "Eli Eli, La ma sabathacni?" Doubtless to the father. In Gethsemane he makes the crucial statement - "Nevertheless not as i will, but as thou wilt" - making it clear that the Father had a different mind, will and selfconsciousness, because if he were the father himself, that prayer would be moot and paradoxical.

Finally, the last question. I already answered this on the other thread, so to save time I will copy and paste it here.

On Gethsemane:

Using my analogy of Keifer Sutherland acting as Jack Bauer in the action series "24", I know you will agree with me (if you watch the series) that many times, Jack Bauer is close to death, and like every other human being, he does not want to die unless he absolutely has to. In a hypothetical scene, he has been left inside an underground chamber while he tries to deactivate a scheduled nuclear warhead, guarded by Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists.

Jack Bauer (in his mind): Not my will, director (The director is Keifer Sutherland), but yours be done. I really want to get out of this scene alive, and save the people of the United States. (frantically tries to deactivate the warhead, while still shooting the Fundamentalist terrorists that are trying to gun him down and prevent him from doing the work)
Casual Observer (someone who has seen the movie last night on MNet): what nonsense?! Doesn't Keifer know that he will not die, and the CTU will rescue him in the next few minutes? Why is he acting like he doesn't know? Are you sure Jack Bauer is Keifer Sutherland? 'Cos he was interviewed last week and he already told us about this scene!
Maven: But of course he has to behave like that, because that is what his role requires! And if Jack Bauer dies in that movie, Keifer Sutherland will never be Jack Bauer again. At least until another movie. Self-preservation is a fundamental human trait, and he's only human to act that way

[b]Furthermore, I want you to note that everything Jesus did and said was for our benefit. If he acted all macho and marched to the cross, how would we know how to deal with circumstances where it seems our will is far easier than God's more complex (difficult?) will? [/b]Here, Jesus was going to undergo a three-day journey that would at first separate him from the Godhead due to the enormity of man's sins. For the FIRST time, the Son of God was going to be divorced, so to speak, from His Father. In actuality, He knew it was temporary, but for our benefit, he had to take it like a man (no pun intended).

Jesus took his disciples along with him so as to show them how it is to battle out such spiritual tussles, but they were just sleeping like logs

As for 1 John 5:7, I know that only the KJV and the AMPLIFIED (which is nothing but KJV amplified by the Original Greek and Hebrew concordances) are the only ones that state it that way, but you missed my point. THAT WAS WHY I said I was not arguing the trinitarian argument! Modern Bible translations translate that as "There is an agreement" or something to that tune. I was talking about the concordance of purpose in God, who is not an author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Personally, I am pained often that the scriptures were doctored by men. And that is why I do not consider the translation of Bible verses in isolation, they must ALL shed the same perspective and what does not will be simply thrown out the window (with respect to the others).

That's what the Bible means by rightly dividing the Word

2Ti 2:15 Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth.

So, I'm all ears, Sir DeepSight.

@nuclearboy: Tritheism means a belief that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate gods. It's what the Muslims say we believe. When many people hear TRINITY, they think TRITHEISM. What we believe, i.e. God manifesting to man in three perspectives, is what is (by my dictionary) Trinity, but I would say "I don't believe in Trinity" because it is another mis-appropriated word in English language (like "making love" used to have another meaning until very recently). In my heart, I know what I understand but for semantics' sake, I do not peddle either of those 2 words.

@DeepSight: Apologies for the digression. I resume with Question 5.