Evidence for God from Science

This is actually a question that came cross my mind after some discussions on other topics here on the forum.

Mainly, the end of days and all the prophecy/prophecies about that refer to a local event that is targeted towards Christian/Non-Christian people living on this planet.

If we do manage to travel to other planets, well, no end of days.

BryanH wrote:This is actually a question that came cross my mind after some discussions on other topics here on the forum.

Mainly, the end of days and all the prophecy/prophecies about that refer to a local event that is targeted towards Christian/Non-Christian people living on this planet.

If we do manage to travel to other planets, well, no end of days.

If a convicted felon manages to escape prison and flee to a country that has no extradition treaty, is he still guilty?

@Byblos

Your example is quite funny I have to say: comparing human punishment with God punishment, but anyways, let's have it your way:

He is still guilty, but he is not getting punished anymore.

BryanH wrote:This is actually a question that came cross my mind after some discussions on other topics here on the forum.

Mainly, the end of days and all the prophecy/prophecies about that refer to a local event that is targeted towards Christian/Non-Christian people living on this planet.

If we do manage to travel to other planets, well, no end of days.

You mean, if there is an "end of days" here and people are on Mars ( for example) then they are not going to be involved/judged during it?

I don't think there ever will be interplanetary travel, but that aside, what, pray tell, makes you think that people on other planets would not come under the final judgment as played out on earth?

• Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. (Rev. 20:11, NIV)

Notice the earth and the heavens flee the very presence of God. What we have here is essentially a divine "uncreation" of all creation. Those on other planets would be just as consumed as those on earth. All would stand under the judgment of God.

Besides, all this is very consistent with biblical revelation as a whole. Israel--and the ancient near east, generally--has been the "stage" on which special revelation has been played out. Others in other parts of the world have been affected by it even if they did not participate in it. So if Earth is the stage on which the final judgment is played out, it does not follow that those not on earth are unaffected.

Bottom line: people on other planets would still be under God's jurisdiction. Judgment is universal, and the New Heavens and New Earth entail a completely new creation. Anyone in any part of this old creation will go through the judgment of God. The question is merely which 'side' they will be on--those opposed to Him or those with Him.

Re: End of Days Question

Unread postby Jac3510 » Fri Jun 08, 2012 11:57 am
I don't think there ever will be interplanetary travel

I assume you mean MANNED interplanetary travel, because we already do have interplanetary travel.
As for manned, yes we already can do that, its a question of $$$ as to whether we ever will.

Bottom line: people on other planets would still be under God's jurisdiction. Judgment is universal, and the New Heavens and New Earth entail a completely new creation. Anyone in any part of this old creation will go through the judgment of God. The question is merely which 'side' they will be on--those opposed to Him or those with Him.

Let's agree to disagree: the end of days relates to local events... it doesn't refer to the entire universe. The quote you have provided from the Bible is a nice metaphor. But again it leads to a lot of interpretation. Anyways if you read Rev 21 you will see that it is refering to "local" changes. It talks about the new city of Jerusalem guarded by 12 angels, with tremendous jasper walls and a lot of precious stones etc etc

Needless to say that the description of the city is so focused on material wealth...

Bottom line: people on other planets would still be under God's jurisdiction. Judgment is universal, and the New Heavens and New Earth entail a completely new creation. Anyone in any part of this old creation will go through the judgment of God. The question is merely which 'side' they will be on--those opposed to Him or those with Him.

That is only an interpretation unless you "know" what God has planned for the rest of the universe... Do you know God's plans? Again we come back to the same issue: knowing God and his plans...

Let's agree to disagree: the end of days relates to local events...

According to?
Let's see what the context of Rev. 21 says, since you brought it up.
"Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God"

Just how do you take this as "local?"

Needless to say that the description of the city is so focused on material wealth...

"It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal"
The point is to emphasize its glorius nature. Why do you contradict yourself. You accuse Jac's quote of being metaphor, yet when it works for your criticism you take it as literal. Not very consistent. Why is Jac's quote metaphor and your quote literal Jasper and crystal?

The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.

Sounds no less than global too me.

"Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God"

I'm not going to argue with you on this one...

I mean, what's the point? Really?

"It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal"
The point is to emphasize its glorius nature. Why do you contradict yourself. You accuse Jac's quote of being metaphor, yet when it works for your criticism you take it as literal. Not very consistent. Why is Jac's quote metaphor and your quote literal Jasper and crystal?

I just pointed out that the description of the city merely relates to material wealth... Of course it's a metaphor... It's a city coming from heaven, where ever that might be. I simply pointed out the way the author describes the city.

The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.

When I said local I was refering to planet Earth...

BryanH wrote:

Bottom line: people on other planets would still be under God's jurisdiction. Judgment is universal, and the New Heavens and New Earth entail a completely new creation. Anyone in any part of this old creation will go through the judgment of God. The question is merely which 'side' they will be on--those opposed to Him or those with Him.

Let's agree to disagree: the end of days relates to local events... it doesn't refer to the entire universe. The quote you have provided from the Bible is a nice metaphor. But again it leads to a lot of interpretation. Anyways if you read Rev 21 you will see that it is refering to "local" changes. It talks about the new city of Jerusalem guarded by 12 angels, with tremendous jasper walls and a lot of precious stones etc etc

Needless to say that the description of the city is so focused on material wealth...

Bottom line: people on other planets would still be under God's jurisdiction. Judgment is universal, and the New Heavens and New Earth entail a completely new creation. Anyone in any part of this old creation will go through the judgment of God. The question is merely which 'side' they will be on--those opposed to Him or those with Him.

That is only an interpretation unless you "know" what God has planned for the rest of the universe... Do you know God's plans? Again we come back to the same issue: knowing God and his plans...

There are many times where the Bible mentions "Earth" or "the World" without actually meaning the physical planet. Oftentimes it's obvious that the real intent of the word is to describe "mankind". Why wouldn't the Revelations refer to the entire universe? The book seems use pretty grandiose and universal language to me. I think interplanetary travel will have no effect on God's judgement of humankind because God is God if the entire universe, so I highly doubt the time of the End of Days would arrive only to have Jesus go "doh, they're on other planets now, theres nothing I can do. Totally didn't see this coming."

First you would have to provide evidence that the account of the End of Days really does just refer to Earth, the 3rd planet from the sun.

First you would have to provide evidence that the account of the End of Days really does just refer to Earth, the 3rd planet from the sun

First of all you have to prove that the people who wrote about the end of days actually spoke to God and that of course implies proving that a God exists (something that I don't doubt entirely) and that such a God actually talked to people.

It's easy to say that God told me this and that. The hard part is proving that they are legit.

BryanH wrote: Let's agree to disagree: the end of days relates to local events...

Well, the other people who posted here have shown that you don't have a leg to stand on: the end of days refers to - wow! - the end of days.

Do you smoke something stronger than cigarettes?

FL

Bryan H,

If you haven't already, I would suggest that you read professor John Lennox's recent book, 'Gunning for God: Why the new atheists are missing the mark' and concentrate on completing the first three chapters entitled:

Are God and faith the enemies of reason and science?
Is religion poisonous?
Is atheism poisonous?

BryanH wrote:First of all you have to prove that the people who wrote about the end of days actually spoke to God and that of course implies proving that a God exists (something that I don't doubt entirely) and that such a God actually talked to people.

First, you prove that the resurrection of Jesus Christ never happened. If you can do that, the following postulates should naturally follow:

1: If there is no God everything is permitted.
2: If science is true there is no God.
3: If science is true everything is permitted.

First, you prove that the resurrection of Jesus Christ never happened. If you can do that, the following postulates should naturally follow:

1: If there is no God everything is permitted.
2: If science is true there is no God.
3: If science is true everything is permitted.

Such evidence would crush a lot of hearts and feelings.