As far as the Nephilim comes into being I don’t think it’s real at all. I think its a metaphors for powerful men because again and gain we see Israel going up against these descendants that pop up even after their supposed death in the flood. I think it
Was actually written as just purely mythology and later on that pattern was taken and used to link to powerful enemies that desires Gods strength for them to overcome so that they can never boast they did it.
The Fermi paradox is bunk. It is universally, technologically, economically, politically impossible to communicate let alone travel over interstellar distances. Ever. This galaxy alone swarms with life and therefore species with shared intentionality. All galaxies in all universes always have. No empirical i.e. scientific proof is necessary, so the impossibility of it is irrelevant. Theology that doesn’t assume that as a given has to come back from its cul-de-sac and catch up.
But Star Trek.
QED!
Just in case: 
1 Like
That certainly one answer to the paradox. However, I would gentle suggest your conclusion is not based on evidence, since, no evidence for alien life exists (that we have found). Again, my point: alien life functionally does not exist.
As such, your argument also, I would suggest, is based on faith not on hard science.
This too is a faith-based argument in my opinion.
Saying that they are faith-based is not to disparage either argument, more an observation that they cannot be proven one way or the other.
I’m an original 79 man and the first two movies. You can keep the rest.
I’ve devoured sci-fi since Heinlein’s Starman Jones in '65. The year I discovered Hiroshima. And Auschwitz…
Fermi and evangelical denial of the eternality of conscious life are sci-fi. The latter is really bad sci-fi. It was an item of unshakable faith for me for most of my life.
No empirical proof is necessary. It has nothing to do with faith. Just rationality. Faith cannot argue equality with that.
How is this any different to blind faith? Whilst on the subject of faith and reason: Why is it more rational to believe in an eternal universe but less rational to believe in a finite or even cyclical one?
You are the one asking what we would do if we encountered aliens with a “cultural practice of murder or lying.” Frankly, it seems to me that aliens might judge that we are the ones with such a culture. But my point was that a cultural practice of cannibalism has already been encountered right here on the earth in our own species, and that is as alien as it gets. You might want to look into why that wasn’t such a crisis of faith as you seem to think it would be.
The way you dismiss the problem of evil? And I did not simply dismiss… I presented good evidence why the problem of evil is the more significant theological problem.
On FTL being nothing but pure fantasy, Klax and I agree. But the energy cost of stellar travel while prohibitive and impractical does not equal an impossibility. It makes me wonder whether Klax really understands the physics involved. Nor do we have evidence yet that the universe “swarms with life.” I agree with you that His “certainty” on these matters is not only faith but downright strange. Its like we are dealing with a new religion that believes in universalism, an infinite multiverse, abundant life in this universe, and last but least rational an absolute impossibility of stellar travel. Certainty on these things don’t come from the Bible or science… so that suggests a new religion of his own.
1 Like
I’m weird in never having really liked the original ST much. Shaftner’s over acting sends me up the walls the way fingernails on the blackboard. TNG is my favorite. DATA the character is well acted even though intellectually the idea seems ridiculous.
Well I am the one who thinks it is possible to wing it in relation to the mystery after all. Anyway, I prefer optimistic to naive and gullible.
Star Trek III has the greatest line of course, Scotty’s reply to the elevator.
Well thank you for that. I haven’t followed all the movies but thank you google:
But “sons of God” usually refers to angelic/divine beings. See Job.
So Cain was afraid of women? Seriously?
Genetic compatibility would not have concerned the ancients who told this story. And the human/angelic hybridization does have parallels in pagan mythology.
No one said he was. “The daughters of men” are part of the already preexisting human population. The same human population Cain was afraid would kill him.
No, but Israel was really concerned about preserving the ethnic purity of the national and familial lines. And since Genesis functions as the historical prologue to the covenant law. So a story warning against the dangers of ‘mixing’ would fit.
But hay, we are likely never going to square the circle this side of the New Creation. So whilst, I am not personally convinced by the pagan mythology theory. It could be right. Whose to say?
Never said they wouldn’t, in fact, I think this is completely plausible. Taking it further, (and borrowing an analogy from Kurzgesagt) an alien race may be so much more advanced than us that we simply appear to them like squirrels in the woods. This might mean that our planet is so pointlessly insignificant that no one cares about it, or that a visiting race might asset stripe the planet with as much concern for us as a logging company has for squirrels.
Whilst I don’t doubt it was disturbing for missionaries (or whoever) to witness cannibalistic practices, they had a framework within Christianity to process it. Name, the doctrines of sin and the fall. My point, which perhaps I am not doing a very good job of explaining, is that we have no theological categories for dealing with the social ills of a super-advanced space-faring race. The bible after all is silent about whether the effects of fall and sin extend beyond our planet for obvious reasons. Neither can we assume that an alien race would (or even should) care about human virtues and ethics (see above point about squirrels).
On this, we do agree.
I fear that your rationality disallows any attribute of the omnitemporal God (who actually does providentially intervene when and where he wills) to be inscrutable and less than humbly set your emperor and idol of rationality and its presuppositions on a par with or even above his.
‘the … interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism’, source? Guess. You don’t like it.
