Tuesday, December 25, 2012

"Christian ufological theology"


Steve, you seem to have little idea of Christian unitarian theology. If you did, you’d know that we too believe in a self-revealing God, who by his spirit inspired the prophets and apostles, and through them the Bible, and who loved us so much that he sent his only Son as the best and last revelation of him.

Dale acts as though you can swap out the key players (redefining the Father, Son, and Spirit), swap in new players, while leaving the Christian story intact.

Now, it’s superficially true that you can change the players while you retain the same basic plot, but the meaning of the story has been radically subverted. The story of salvation is not just a string of bare events, but theologically interpreted events. Dale is acting like a positivist historian.

Take ufology. Following Dale’s lead, we could substitute three aliens for the Trinity. From the mother ship, in high orbit, the alien captain (the alien “Yahweh”) sends an alien “prophet” to earth to prepare humans for an alien “savior”. This could follow the narrative outlines of the OT and NT. Same plot, different players.

Indeed, some science fiction, like the Stargate series, toy with the idea that ancient “gods” are really space aliens masquerading as gods and goddesses. Their “miracles” are simply advanced alien technology.

Moreover, this isn’t just fiction. There are ufologists who really believe that sort of thing.

Clearly, though, this would be a completely different religion. It would only be Christian on the surface.


  1. Do you consider those who hold to Nicene subordination of the Son and the monarchy of the Father members of a completely different religion?

    1. No. There are degrees of error.

    2. However, Drake goes well beyond that. He signed his spiritual death warrant by the answers he gave to my facetiously titled "Peril of worshiping Jesus" post.

  2. ...not to mention that the nature of the Savior is key to his purpose. If he is not God the Creator, he does not save in the same way. Would this be the relationship between ontology and teleology?

  3. Jim, from where I sit I happen to like that question.

    When we just saw and are seeing such emotion stirred in the world about the marketplace one of the things I am building on is a teleological statement that Christ's birth was for this reason, to destroy both the works of the devil and the devil!

    Some want to glorify the baby Jesus.

    A slight friend did something in Portland Ore. area once causing such a stir when he painted a nativity scene and instead of a baby Jesus in the manger he put the crucified Christ, fully grown, bloodied and bruised and under the caption "He was wounded for our transgressions...".

    Why was Christ born?

    I say to destroy the works of the devil and the devil and of course, the last enemy, Death himself!