Space Theology: Cosmic Redemption

You knew this would happen…

You knew this day, this time, would come…

All those moments…

All those memories…

You knew they wouldn’t last forever…You knew they couldn’t…

You knew you’d have to face the fact that…

Nothing lasts forever…

This is Reality…

You’ve always known that…You’ve always believed it…

Why are you so surprised?

When you’re a child, or even a teenager, you don’t really have a full awareness or understanding of the world around you. You see everything (metaphorically speaking) through a small lens. It’s only really when you are further exposed to the world, and its contents, that your view of it changes. We all dream of “childhood innocence” and while I believe we should, to an extent, “let children be children”, I don’t believe in letting children “be children” to the point where they have a superficial view or understanding of their own existence. In other words, I don’t believe it’s right to substitute Reality for Fantasy.

There are moments in my childhood I would love to experience all over again. Sometimes a part of me wishes I could step into a Doctor Who-esque time machine and whiz back a couple of years. Is that the tragedy of life? We just have to accept that some things don’t last forever? We just have to accept that our existence is temporary?

I think people have a very Romantic view of the Universe, and indeed, the world. People like to treat the stars as if they are “shining our love”, conveniently forgetting that stars don’t give two hoots about your dreamy fantasies. A “shooting star”, for instance, may look romantic and awe-inspiring (and it is) but it is (more-or-less) only a speeding ball of rock.

I’m not saying that people should take an ultra-reductionist approach to the Universe and strip everything of its majesty, but that people should put things into perspective.

In 1949, George Orwell published what is probably his most famous work, entitled, “1984″. I must admit that I haven’t read the novel myself. The story (apparently) “predicts” that at the end of the 20th Century, beginning of the 21st, society will be tightly controlled by the Government, with surveillance running rampant, ultimately creating a “Big Brother” state, in which every aspect of people’s lives is controlled and monitored.

I’m not really a big fan of so-called “reality T.V.” programmes- programmes whereby people sing to try to get rich and famous, like The X-Factor or Pop Idol. Saturday nights, for quite a few people, consist of sitting in front of television screens watching wannabe pop singers. Indeed, it seems like every Saturday/Saturday night on Facebook, people’s status updates frequently mention The X-Factor.

Maybe I’m just cynical, but I think that the The X-Factor (and other programmes like it) are just cheap entertainment. I know it’s maybe nice to watch after being at work all day- a time to “crash”- but I sometimes wonder whether people watch it just because that’s what society has deemed as “acceptable”. Quite frankly, I think it’s “dumbing-down” society- instilling nonsensical thinking into people’s minds. The same thing doesn’t solely apply to The X-Factor, but to any similar programme or show.

If you look at the statistics, The X-Factor draws in millions of people each night it’s on. I don’t know the exact number of people, but the fact that it’s in the millions, to me, is quite worrying. When was the last time people tuned in to a documentary on global issues, the environment, or politics (to name some examples)?

I have a wonderful teacher at school who, although she may seem strict to some people, has a genuine passion for her beliefs. Not so long ago she commented on how the educational system of the country was churning out “robots”- students who are told to learn this, write that in the exam, and get high marks- all so that the Government can boast about how “good” their educational system is. I must admit that I wanted to applaud my teacher’s speech because I believe she was absolutely right- although, not just with regards to school/university education, but even with regards to people’s everyday lives.

Although I don’t want this to sound elitist or smug, I don’t see myself as belonging to the “pop-culture pack”. I think I’m outside it, with others, exploring different avenues and alternatives. I suppose you could say that I’m “thinking outside the box”.

A couple of days ago, the Lisbon Treaty was signed by Great Britain. A good friend of mine was (and is) quite distraught that it was signed, believing that the U.K. should leave the EU (European Union) and be independent. I would, in essence, have to agree with him. I don’t really see the need for the EU as a political body and I think it’s rather pointless. In fact, I think the main reason (or one of the main reasons) why the EU exists is to be a rival to America and other large nations. People, I’m sure, have interpreted the EU in many ways and believe it’s a conspiracy of some sort. Some have even called it the new superstate- the “United States of Europe”.

Whether any of these are true or not is maybe up for debate. I do think, however, that the liberties of Europe are being suppressed. Particularly in the U.K. there is a growing Liberal feeling.

If an attack on a Homosexual happens, it’s branded “homophobic”, yet if an attack on a Heterosexual happens it’s not called “heterophobic”. It’s considered acceptable for “Gay Pride” parades to take place and travel down the street, but if a “Straight Pride” parade takes place it’s considered to be “public indecency”. You have to tolerate people, regardless of what their views are. If you disagree with their views, tough, you just have to accept that they hold those beliefs.

Liberalism, I believe, only goes so far. Liberals claim to represent people’s individual rights and “freedom of speech” and, on the surface, Liberalism does seem likeable. However, where Liberalism falls is in its distribution of “rights” or freedoms. For example, somebody may be given the “right” to be Homosexual, or to publicly proclaim their Homosexuality- they are given the “liberty” to do so. However, if you disagree with Homosexuality, whether on grounds of Faith or something else, Liberalism denies you the “right” to speak out against Homosexuality, because it is going against the “right” of those to be Homosexual. In giving one group of people “rights”, Liberals deny others the same privilege (if you want to call it that). That’s way Liberals are not as “free-thinking” as they like to believe.

Of course, defining “Conservatism” is not an easy task either, but whereas Liberalism has a narrow view of morality, Conservatism takes it seriously.

I think some people (mostly the Liberals) have the impression that Conservatism is in some way a dogmatic, narrow-minded, legalistic ideology. Again, how “Conservatism” is defined (or, rather, how the term is applied) might vary from person-to-person. By-and-large, however, it refers to keeping the status-quo, or, in keeping traditional values and ethics. I suppose when people think of Conservatism, they think of right-wing politics. I would argue, however, that Conservatism is not synonymous with Fascism or the idea of a dictatorial Government, something I think greatly misunderstood by the Liberals.

I consider myself to be Conservative, but I do not consider myself to be close-minded. While I may believe in Conservative values, that does not mean that I block out external ideas or avenues.

One such “avenue” which I’ve been interested in is that of, what I like to call, “Space Theology”.

What is “Space Theology”? Essentially, the application of Theological doctrines (largely Christian) to sentient life in “outer-space”. Sorry if it sounds “alien”…

Perhaps I should confirm, or re-iterate, that I am being 100% serious with regards to “Space Theology”- it is not, as some might believe, an early April Fools Day joke…

Space exploration, to my knowledge, has only really been taken seriously by NASA in the USA (although, the Soviets did release Sputnik 1). That’s understandable, perhaps, considering that America has (or did have) a large economy and lots of money to invest in a space programme. Imagine, though, we were able to get into rockets and travel great distances into Space, possibly even to other galaxies. What if other Human lifeforms were “found”? Would Christians need to evangelise to them as to their counter-parts on Earth?

To be honest, I can’t really give many Biblical references with regards to “Space Theology” because I don’t think the Bible (explicitly) says a lot about Theology in Space. Saying that, I do think there are a couple of verses which at least hint to the possibility that Christianity is universal, or goes beyond the confines of Earth:

“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all people…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”

John 1 v 3-4, 14

“The creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in pains of childbirth right up to the present time.”

Romans 8 v 19-22

“‘When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.’*

(What does ‘he ascended’ mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)”

Ephesians 4 v 8-9

*Psalm 68 v 18

I’m by no means saying that these verses are definitive, and I’m sure some people will have Theological objections of their usage to “Space Theology”. Indeed, some might even object to the very idea of “Space Theology”. Nevertheless, I do think it is an endeavour one worth pursuing, or investigating, because I don’t think enough has been said on the subject.

Another aspect of “Space Theology” that I’m quite interested in is that of (what I like to call), “Cosmic Redemption”. In other words, do the Christian concepts of the “forgiveness of sins” and “salvation” apply exclusively to Humans on Earth, or are they too Universal, extending to other sentient, Human (or Human-like) beings? I asked in my last post whether Jesus was only the “saviour” for Earth and whether there were other “saviours” assigned to other “Earth-like” planets. I may have found a couple of verses which, perhaps, go against that proposition:

“For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared one for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.”

Hebrews 9 v 24-26

Many Christians believe that Jesus was/is the “one-and-only” way of redemption and salvation, and so the idea that there were/are many “Christs” “assigned” to different planets is, possibly, quite a heretical idea.

Like I said, I don’t really know what Christians in general make of this so-called “Space Theology” concept. Absurd? Possibly. Me talking nonsense? Probably…

Lightning all around me…

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

Epicurus

I’m really stating the obvious, I think, when I say that I have deep interest (fascination, almost) in Philosophy and philosophical issues. It’s easy to get bogged down in the theoretical side of philosophy (or any sort of thinking) while forgetting about the real-life implications such theories have. That’s not to say that theoretical thinking isn’t important- it is- but that it’s vital that such theories properly reflect the outlook of reality and take real-life issues into consideration. Philosophy, properly speaking, is not just abstract thinking, but something which has enormous practical power as well.

One issue I’ve been thinking about lately is that of the “problem of evil”, largely due to an interesting video I’ve seen a few times on the same topic. One thing the panellists didn’t satisfactorily address or explain, I felt, was that of the definition of “evil”- there’s little point in talking about it if it has no meaning.

I think people have a set idea on what “evil”, to them, means. People believe that mass shootings are “evil”, that war is “evil”, that murder is “evil”, that knocking down an old person is “evil”. But what is “evil”? What is a “bad act”? How do we determine what is “good” and “evil”? By what criteria or standards do we judge such things?

To have a sense of morality, I believe it’s vital that you (and I) have the faculty of consciousness. Living, animate and thinking beings have (to some degree) a sense of morality- most can think and carry out particular judgements.

Inanimate objects, however, do not have a sense of morality- they are neither moral nor immoral- they are amoral.

If a piece of rock breaks off a cliff-wall and hits you on the head, while you’re out for your evening walk, it would be wrong of you to accuse the cliff of plotting an attack on you, or to try and sue the cliff in court for compensation for your injury. The cliff neither knows, nor cares, whether a piece of its rock hits you on the head while you innocently stroll.

If someone throws a chair at you, it would, I believe, be wrong of you to accuse the chair itself of ill-intent- you would probably accuse the person who threw the chair. Just like the cliff, the chair neither knows nor cares who it hits.

Although I’m not so much “into” them now, video games have recently became more ethic-centred in that a lot of the stories that happen in them are based around moral decisions, or question our ethical beliefs. I do occasionally play a video game called “Bioshock”- noted for its Ayn Rand/Objectivist influences.

In Bioshock, there are little girls called “Little Sisters” who carry a substance called “Adam” which, in layman’s terms, enables the player to have “superhuman” abilities. There are two ways of “dealing” with the Little Sisters (after you kill their guardian, the “Big Daddy”)- either you “harvest” them or you rescue them. Harvesting them gives you more Adam, which enables you to buy more/better “plasmids” (powers), whereas rescuing them only gives you a small amount of “Adam”- however, if you rescue them, you receive more ammunition and supplies in order to survive.

The video games industry is one of the largest in entertainment and (last I heard) it generates more revenue (money) than movies. However, it has had its fair share of criticism from people who believe that violent video games will turn your little Johnny into a mad child.

The sequel to the very popular game, “Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare” is coming out in November and it’s called (no surprises), “Modern Warfare 2″. The reason I mention this game is that it’s lately been criticised for it’s gory opening sequence. (I should warn you now that spoilers follow, so please skip this next part if you don’t want the game ruined before you buy it!).

The sequence, of which there is a Youtube video, features you stepping into the role of a terrorist in an airport, alongside your “buddies”. You step out of an elevator and onto the floor where people are checking in for their flights- you and your buddies then open fire and shoot everyone standing dead. It sort of reminds me of the events which happened in Mumbai last year.

Regardless, it does raise some interesting points about the role of morality in video games (or any entertainment medium, for that matter).

Shooting dead a person, or thing, in a video game ten-years-ago (or more) wasn’t really that big of a deal. I think the reason why violence in video games has attracted more attention in recent times is because of the fact that video games are becoming much more detailed and realistic. Now, when you shoot something (or someone) dead in a video game, there is a greater impact on the player because the experience is much more “pumped up”. Graphics have also had a major impact, in that the level of detail is absolutely mind-blowing (take “Crysis”, for example).

Video games (at least graphically) are essentially a combination of lots (possibly millions) of pixels. When you “shoot dead” a person in a video game, you are more-or-less shooting at a lot of pixels on your screen (even your “bullets” are pixels hitting pixels). However, because of the incredible immersion of video games nowadays, it is difficult for people to distinguish between the real world around them, and the fictional world of pixels and polygons on their television screens.

Maybe that’s why the argument that video games are “just a bunch of pixels” doesn’t satisfy opponents, who say they’re violent and hurting little Johnny. If I must be honest, I don’t think it’s fair, really, to point the finger at video games- you can feel the same sort of experiences and emotions when reading a novel, yet, it’s very rare for a novel to be banned because of its content- and there are some very gruesome novels in print.

I think video games are an interesting way to portray morality and ethics- I do consider them to be, in a sense, “works of art”. They are “art” in the graphical sense, in that they have certain aesthetic qualities- but they are also “art” in the musical and sound sense, in that they have certain sounds/soundtracks to accompany the aesthetic experience.

While I was browsing the BBC News website (I have the RSS Feed) I came across a story about a ten-week-old puppy in England who was kicked in the head by someone while out walking with their owner- the dog died from injuries. Needless to say, the story sickened me.

I find it bizarre how some people treat animals with little-to-no respect. If a ten-week-old child came up to you, would you kick them in the head? Probably not (I’d hope not).

If anything, my time with my pet dog Jack (nearly ten years) taught me that dogs (and animals in general) do have feelings and can feel physical and emotional pain. There is, I believe, a notion in society that “it’s just a dog” or “it’s just a cat”. If someone was to say, “It’s just a child. So what?” they would probably receive a wave of angry responses close to, “How dare you say ‘it’s just a child’!”

So, why say the same with regards to animals?

Although I don’t agree with his Utilitarianism, I do agree with the philosopher, Peter Singer, that animals have rights (or should have them) and that they feel pain like humans. In his book, Animal Liberation (which I haven’t fully read- only a few excerpts), Peter Singer talks about how, in the chapter, “Do Animals Feel Pain?”:

Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species, especially the species most closely related to us–the species of mammals and birds. The behavioral signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of the pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on. In addition, we know that these animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically like ours do when the animal is in circumstances in which we would feel pain…

…there are no good reasons, scientific or philosophical, for denying that animals feel pain. If we do not doubt that other humans feel pain we should not doubt that other animals do so too.

Animals can feel pain.

Whatever your views on evolution are, there is a similarity between ourselves and animals, who we share the world with.

I do believe, strongly I guess, that animals have a conscience and can perceive the world around them. Animals are aware of the world around them, can interact with it, and can respond accordingly. How is this so? Because they have brains like you and I. A dog knows that when something falls beside it to run away- escape the danger and the threat of getting hurt. A dog can “read” the facial expressions of a Human face- when a person smiles at a dog, the tail wags and the ears fold back- a sign of happiness and excitement. A dog even knows by the tone of voice in a Human whether to stay back, walk forward, or to stand still.

Ethically, I do think that animals have their own sense of morality and what is right and wrong. If an animal sees another of its relative or kin in danger, they will help them out and try to protect them. Or, if one of its close of kin is injured, an animal will try to seek help and do what it can to look after their family.

Speaking from experience, when you know that animals have a conscience and can feel physical and emotional pain, your entire world view and attitude towards them changes. They are no longer “just animals”; they are living, breathing, sentient beings. You treat an animal like you would a fellow Human Being and you acknowledge that they exist, that they are real, and that they are actually very similar to yourself…

Most of us have probably heard the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, according to Genesis- how they were tempted by the snake, found out by God, and kicked out of paradise. Whether it’s a historically true account of events is up for debate- many think it’s an allegorical myth. However, many also believe it was a real event in history and that God “set Humans apart” from animals:

Then God said, ‘Let us make humans beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move on the ground.’

So God created human beings
in his own image
in the image of God he created them;
male and female
he created them.

God blessed [Adam and Eve] and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.’

Genesis 1 v 26-28

Many today, especially those who work in “evolutionary biology”, reject the view that Humans are “rulers” over animals, or that Humans have some sort of “special position” in the cosmos. Indeed, when you take the vastness of Space and the Universe into consideration, you can’t help but wonder whether we, as Humans, are really as “special” as we think:

The most current estimates guess that there are 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the Universe, each of which has hundreds of billions of stars. A recent German supercomputer simulation put that number even higher: 500 billion. In other words, there could be a galaxy out there for every star in the Milky Way.

Universe Today

I think people “spin” the size of the Universe in two ways. The first one is, “It’s so big- that means God is an amazing Creator who created so much!- he even remembers us in the vastness of space!”. The second one is, “It’s so big- we and our planet are tiny specks of cosmic dust- we are not special in the sheer vastness of space- other lifeforms could exist.”

So, I think we have this dilemma of, “Are we, or are we not, special?”

To add further fuel to the fire, there is always the concept of “parallel universes”- that is: other universes exist alongside our own- this is not the only universe in existence. Although it is still sort of theoretical at the moment, the “multi-verse” theory isn’t (to my knowledge) one which scientists completely reject. I must confess that I struggle trying to imagine the size of our own Universe- trying to imagine multiple Universes (finite or infinite) boggles the mind!

The thought process is made even harder when you take into consideration the (possible) different physical constants of each of the “Universes”. Does time pass at the same rate in all Universes, or does it depend on each Universe’s physics? Is it possible to time-travel in the other Universes? Can we “jump” from Universe-to-Universe? Are some Universes more hostile than others- in terms of Nature or inhabitants?

I think people have a hostile reaction when told that their existence is of no great significance or importance in the grand scheme of the Universe. There is a sense that we like to “big” ourselves up- we like to believe that there is a purpose (more-so, a divine one) for our existence. We don’t like to believe that we are just “cosmic dust”- just a bunch of atoms glued together.

I suppose the question, “What is the meaning of life?” is to assume, or presuppose, that life has a meaning behind it. Maybe a better question would be, “Does life have a meaning?” Even the question of, “Why are we here?” is sometimes vague. Does, “Why are we here?” refer to the physical laws of nature- what physical processes caused us to be created? or does it refer to the metaphysical (e.g. “Is there a (divine) purpose or reason behind our existence?”)?

The whole notion of “multi-verses” and other physics-related questions about Space and the Universe pose, I think, an interesting Theological discussion. Indeed, I asked my Minister once of what he thought about the issues of redemption and salvation if other Human lifeforms (or any sentient beings) were found on other planets. Needless to say, he thought it was an interesting question, though he didn’t really have an answer to it.

Do the people on this Earth only require redemption/salvation, or does it apply Universally? If another planet with Humans on it was discovered (or they discovered us), would the same Christian principle of redemption and salvation apply to them as to us? Would they too need to be “saved”? Did Jesus only come to us, or to other planets? Did each “earth-like planet” have their own “Messiah” by which they needed saved, and Jesus was the “only way” by which we on Earth could be saved? In other words, was each earth-like planet “assigned” a “Messiah”?

I do realise these are very complicated questions for the Theologian to answer and, if I must be honest, I don’t really have any answers myself. Saying that, I don’t think Theologians have even properly considered the questions, let alone answered them. Theologians, and Christians in general, seem to think solely about their own planet and themselves. I don’t mean that Christians are selfish or self-centered, but that the majority don’t think about the implications of concepts like “redemption” or “salvation” beyond their own tiny planet of Earth.

Indeed, Paul in the New Testament writes:

For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like men condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to men.

1 Corinthians 4 v 9

Should Christians be concerned about the salvation of those in “outer-space”? I honestly don’t know, although I think it should at least be considered. If Christians were to be serious about it, I would probably call the new endeavour, “Space Theology”.

Maybe it’ll stick…

I remembered black skies, the lightning all around me .
I remembered each flash, as time began to blur.
Like a startling sign, that fate had finally found me.
And your voice was all I heard,
That I get what I deserve.

Linkin Park- “New Divide”

‘And afterwards,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
Even on my servants, both men and
women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
I will show wonders in the heavens
and on the earth,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.’

Joel 2 v 28-30