Ultimate Purpose of Space Shuttle Program?

[Don]

Biblelighthouse said, "It is important to remember that there are some life forms on Earth that could live on Mars *today* without any "artificial environment" at all."

Excuse my ignorance but what are these 'life forms' and how do we know that they can? Or is it just speculated?

 

[gwine]

Originally posted by Don
Biblelighthouse said, "It is important to remember that there are some life forms on Earth that could live on Mars *today* without any "artificial environment" at all."

Excuse my ignorance but what are these 'life forms' and how do we know that they can? Or is it just speculated?

Not exactly a dog but see this article:

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/surviving.asp

or

http://www.unmuseum.org/marsrock.htm

I'm not holding my breath waiting for them to 'evolve' into something useful.

 

[Bladestunner316]

Well let the liberals and atheists control mars, our environment, our government, our schools, and our jobs.

Christians should just stay in church and sit quitly.

blade

 

[SRoper]

"Excuse my ignorance but what are these 'life forms' and how do we know that they can? Or is it just speculated?"

It's speculation based on the the idea that there are many forms of life that survive on earth in more hostile environments than the best environments on Mars.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by kceaster

You're kind of coming at this problem a bit terrestrially. First, while we would say things do grow in hostile environments on our planet, they are still on our planet. I was reading a few years ago about how delicate our water cycle is on this planet. If that water cycle were not as it is, life would not, could not exist.

You have been fed misinformation. There are life forms in the hearts of rocks, and in little microscopic drops of water trapped within ice, neither of which needs the water cycle to sustain life. And those two examples are just off the top of my head.

Of course there are life forms that do depend on the water cycle. But just remember that I never claimed Mars can *currently* support *all* forms of life. I just said that it can currently support *some* forms of life. Put some of Earth's hardiest microscopic life on Mars, and I doubt they'd even notice the difference.

Originally posted by kceaster
If God didn't put life there, nor did He create Mars to sustain life, while we could stupidly attempt to do so, we have to maintain that God will not allow Mars to become our second home. To argue for that diminishes God's sovereignty over His universe. . . . Therefore, if God had wanted Mars to sustain life, then He would have done so.

You've got to be kidding, Kevin. This is no different from the argument, "If God wanted men to fly, He would have given them wings." --- Do you think that airplanes are sinful, Kevin?

God did not create man with wings, but God did create man with the ability to seek out and find the laws of aerodynamics which are sovereignly administered by God.

God did not create man with ears like a fox, but God did create man with the ability to seek out and find the radio waves He created and administers, thus developing wireless telephones.

God did not create man with the built-in ability to traverse space and live on Mars. But I believe God did create man with the ability to seek out even more of God's sovereignly administered laws, to enable him to do so.

"Great are the works of the LORD,
studied by all who have pleasure in them." (Psalm 111:2)

 

[LadyFlynt]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt

That can of worms, however, cannot live on Mars. The worms would freeze.

 

[Peter]

I see the issue of terraforming as separate. It may or may not be possible to re-create earth on mars, im not sure I haven't read anything or studied the issue at all (Joe has read at least one book on the issue so I think he's better qualified to say then the rest of us). However, with present technology I do believe it is possible to create permanent human settlements in outerspace: in satellites, on the moon, eventually on other planets. We already have astronauts in space-stations for months at a time, how far away are we from having families living up there?

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by Peter


I see the issue of terraforming as separate. It may or may not be possible to re-create earth on mars, im not sure I haven't read anything or studied the issue at all (Joe has read at least one book on the issue so I think he's better qualified to say then the rest of us). However, with present technology I do believe it is possible to create permanent human settlements in outerspace: in satellites, on the moon, eventually on other planets. We already have astronauts in space-stations for months at a time, how far away are we from having families living up there?

Joe is the only one who has read books on this subject? au contraire.

KC

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Peter


I see the issue of terraforming as separate. It may or may not be possible to re-create earth on mars, im not sure I haven't read anything or studied the issue at all (Joe has read at least one book on the issue so I think he's better qualified to say then the rest of us). However, with present technology I do believe it is possible to create permanent human settlements in outerspace: in satellites, on the moon, eventually on other planets. We already have astronauts in space-stations for months at a time, how far away are we from having families living up there?

Excellent point, Peter! We have already had people walk on the moon, live for months in outer space, and have even developed ways to grow vegetables in weightless conditions without using any soil at all. Understandably, it is taking much time and technology, but all the pieces are gradually coming together. Given another hundred years or more, I don't think it is far-fetched at all to believe people will live in space for even longer amounts of time.

One of the biggest (if not THE biggest) barrier is the cost of escaping the Earth's gravity. It currently costs around half a billion dollars for the shuttle to make one round trip to space orbit and back. But how much more feasible will it be to make multiple round trips to space if/when technology improves, and cheaper power sources are developed? It's much like airplane flight . . . originally planes were military vehicles and transportation for the rich. But commercialism has brought individual costs down, and so I can now fly across the country for a few hundred bucks. Early automobiles weren't affordable for most people. But then Henry Ford made it possible for average working men to buy them. Early computers were extremely expensive, and only companies with great need and great money purchased them. Today, you can pay $400 for a Dell PC that is more powerful than all of the computing power in Houston used to put a man on the moon in 1969. Technology improves!

What is monetarily impractical today, is a convenience taken for granted tomorrow. (In fact, a few very rich people have already paid to fly into space! . . . How long until it too becomes commonplace for the rest of us?) I believe commericalism is the key to the same price reductions happening with space travel. That is why I am so excited about the recent private strides made in ramjet technology! As long as NASA rules space, I don't think we'll get much further. But once some multi-billion-dollar companies get into the fray, seeking for commercial profit, I think we will see some serious strides in the price-reduction for average-Joes like me. And once it becomes a major commercial endeavor, the huge cash-inflow will push technological advances even further. Let another few hundred years go by, and we very well may see colonies built on the moon, babies born in space or on the moon, etc. And Mars is just another step beyond that.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Just a thought:

If a baby is born in space, in weightlessness, how do we go about baptizing him?

Until the technology is safely developed for this, and is designed in such a way that a lawfully ordained Presbyterian astronaut can easily perform a weightless paedobaptism, it may be wise to restrict the space program to baptists.

 

[SRoper]

"One of the biggest (if not THE biggest) barrier is the cost of escaping the Earth's gravity."

See my earlier post in this tread on the space elevator.

 

[kceaster]

Joseph...

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by kceaster

You're kind of coming at this problem a bit terrestrially. First, while we would say things do grow in hostile environments on our planet, they are still on our planet. I was reading a few years ago about how delicate our water cycle is on this planet. If that water cycle were not as it is, life would not, could not exist.

You have been fed misinformation. There are life forms in the hearts of rocks, and in little microscopic drops of water trapped within ice, neither of which needs the water cycle to sustain life. And those two examples are just off the top of my head.

I think you misunderstand me. In order for us to live, we have to eat more than life forms in the hearts of rocks. In order for men, women, and children to live on Mars, there has to be water source, food source, and shelter. None of that was created by God. It has to be artificially manipulated by man in order for it to happen. What is there to shield humankind from solar winds? What is there to make a quality of life like here on earth? God created our world as it is to give us a home. I think you're still coming at this deistically. He didn't hand us the keys and say, "Drive it wherever you want." He's in control. Do you believe that?

Now, if you are correct and that human life can be sustained on Mars, then God sustains that life through whatever means He uses. But my point is, God will not allow it. So, if I'm right there will never be successful settlements outside terra firma. We'll just have to wait and see.

Of course there are life forms that do depend on the water cycle. But just remember that I never claimed Mars can *currently* support *all* forms of life. I just said that it can currently support *some* forms of life. Put some of Earth's hardiest microscopic life on Mars, and I doubt they'd even notice the difference.

Again, I think you're leaving God quite out of the picture. If they exist here, they do so because God sustains them. That doesn't mean that it is immutable that they will exist wherever like conditions are met.

Originally posted by kceaster
If God didn't put life there, nor did He create Mars to sustain life, while we could stupidly attempt to do so, we have to maintain that God will not allow Mars to become our second home. To argue for that diminishes God's sovereignty over His universe. . . . Therefore, if God had wanted Mars to sustain life, then He would have done so.

You've got to be kidding, Kevin. This is no different from the argument, "If God wanted men to fly, He would have given them wings." --- Do you think that airplanes are sinful, Kevin?

Let's not make some sort of equivocation here. I'm not saying that technology is in itself, sinful, but what man does with it. You'll recall Babel. That's why I'm saying that any attempt to "slip the surly bonds of earth and touch the face of God," is doomed to failure. In His providence, He's allowed us, yea, even prompted us to do some amazing things. But the moment we start taking control over things and leaving Him out of it, we need to put on the brakes. Do you agree with cloning and stem cell research? I object to those things for the same reason I object to extra-planetary living.

God did not create man with the built-in ability to traverse space and live on Mars. But I believe God did create man with the ability to seek out even more of God's sovereignly administered laws, to enable him to do so.

"Great are the works of the LORD,
studied by all who have pleasure in them." (Psalm 111:2)

You know, it's not some sort of cosmic puzzle we can piece together and somehow find out things God never intended us to know. The secrets of His creation are not stumbled upon. He's revealed them and made them known to whomever He wishes. There is not some maze that we may traverse in order to reach areas we were never intended to find.

But when God makes a statement at Babel, Assyria, Babylon, etc., he means that it will never come to pass. Alexander sought out Babylon to rebuild it. He failed. Sadaam Hussein said the same thing, he failed. God said it would be uninhabitable by anything but the jackal, and it is.

If He creates for us a habitable planet and told us to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth, that is, the planet He created for us, then we had best accomplish that task before we go seeking another. Have we, as His people, subdued the earth? Has any of His redemptive history taken place on any other world or in space? The cosmos centered on one historical fact and everything else revolves around it.

Personally, between creation mandates and the great commission, I think we have enough to do than to waste our efforts in space. My God shall supply all your need means that He will supply it the way He has designed to do so. It would be a new revelation for us if we thought God wanted us to colonize another planet because our needs were not met on this one.

Even if I have to sleep with strangers to my right or to my left, I would not board one transport to some other planet than where Christ was incarnate. All of history culminates at the space in time where Christ was humiliated and exalted. I'll not move anywhere that that history does not know.

In Christ,

KC

 

[kceaster]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse
Just a thought:

If a baby is born in space, in weightlessness, how do we go about baptizing him?

Until the technology is safely developed for this, and is designed in such a way that a lawfully ordained Presbyterian astronaut can easily perform a weightless paedobaptism, it may be wise to restrict the space program to baptists.

The real question is: Can grapes be grown artificially on Mars? If there are no grapes, there is no Lord's Table.

KC

 

[Peter]

Originally posted by kceaster

Originally posted by Peter


I see the issue of terraforming as separate. It may or may not be possible to re-create earth on mars, im not sure I haven't read anything or studied the issue at all (Joe has read at least one book on the issue so I think he's better qualified to say then the rest of us). However, with present technology I do believe it is possible to create permanent human settlements in outerspace: in satellites, on the moon, eventually on other planets. We already have astronauts in space-stations for months at a time, how far away are we from having families living up there?

Joe is the only one who has read books on this subject? au contraire.

KC

Sorry about that KC. In the course of our discussion he is the only one to reference the work of a scholar in the field though.

 

[Augusta]

Originally posted by Don
I found this interesting on the plausibility of inter-stellar travel.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/nephilim9.asp#appendix

For the record I am not post-millenial and I think this thread may be the nail in the coffin on me ever becoming one. However. Just because Newtonion physics is the current law of the land doesn't mean we don't have more to learn about physics. As a matter of fact Newtonion physics is on its way out so we can't appeal to that anymore.

We just need the right engine in our ship to go to outer space. I don't know if God will allow that or not. Anybody heard of this guy??

American Antigravity

Force Borne web

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Augusta]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by kceaster

I think you misunderstand me. In order for us to live, we have to eat more than life forms in the hearts of rocks.

Straw man. If you go back and read my posts again, I think you will see that I never thought otherwise.

Rather, the plan is this: Introduce small, hardy life forms that can endure the harsh conditions of Mars, and that do not require any oxygen at all. Those little lifeforms, over time, should multiply, convert some of the C02 to oxygen, and change the very atmosphere of the planet. Then the planet would be habitable to hardy life forms that DO require some oxygen. Over time, the spreading of life could help melt the C02 icecap, which would thicken the atmosphere. Plus, the rising levels of oxygen would be bombarded by cosmic rays, creating ozone, which would protect life from ultraviolet rays. Thus even more life could now survive on the changing face of Mars. The water ice cap would eventually melt, providing more water than is currently accessible on Mars. Over several hundred years, I think you would be amazed at how many changes could take place on the red planet, enabling it to support animals, and eventually even humans.

Originally posted by kceaster

In order for men, women, and children to live on Mars, there has to be water source, food source, and shelter. None of that was created by God. It has to be artificially manipulated by man in order for it to happen. What is there to shield humankind from solar winds? What is there to make a quality of life like here on earth? God created our world as it is to give us a home.

There is a water ice cap. Some life forms could start using that. As life spreads, the atmosphere is thickened, the temperature rises, and water eventually melts.

Food would come from the plants and animals which would eventually live there. You introduce those into the planet before you start a human settlement.

As for shelter, there are plenty of natural resources on Mars (metals, etc.) which could be forged into building materials. Plus, once we get trees growing on the planet, there will be wood.

And as I noted above, once there is oxygen in the Martian atmosphere, the cosmic rays themselves will change the upper-atmosphere oxygen into ozone, thus protecting life below from cosmic rays.

Originally posted by kceaster
I think you're still coming at this deistically. He didn't hand us the keys and say, "Drive it wherever you want." He's in control. Do you believe that?

I am as anti-deist as they come. I believe that Christ upholds everything from moment to moment by His power, and not one thing happens without Him having ordained it. I just don't happen to see any Scriptural prohibition against space exploration, travel, and colonization. I believe God has ordained it to occur. If life is successful on Mars, it will be life God created, and it will live there because God sustains it there.

Your question is similar to someone objecting to all the fruit trees and vegetables and livestock we Americans have introduced to this continent from other continents. God didn't originally put okra over here, so we shouldn't be growing it here? God didn't originally put corn in England, so they shouldn't grow it there? I don't think it works that way.

Originally posted by kceaster

Now, if you are correct and that human life can be sustained on Mars, then God sustains that life through whatever means He uses. But my point is, God will not allow it. So, if I'm right there will never be successful settlements outside terra firma. We'll just have to wait and see.

How do you know God will not allow it? Is that your opinion, or can you point me to a Scripture that says, "Earth, but no further" ?

I do agree with you that IF God wants to extra-terrestrial settlements, then there will never be any. But I am not aware of any such will of God. On the contrary, I think recent technological advances implicitly suggest that God IS moving us in that direction, via His choice to give such scientific revelations to us.

Originally posted by kceaster

Again, I think you're leaving God quite out of the picture. If they exist here, they do so because God sustains them. That doesn't mean that it is immutable that they will exist wherever like conditions are met.

How am I leaving God out of the picture? God created hardy life forms on Earth, didn't He? And He created similar living conditions on Mars, didn't He? And He tends to be consistent, in nature, doesn't He? Are you saying that God can uphold life on Earth, but He couldn't on Mars? What reason do you have for believing that God will not permit life there?

I repeat: I am as anti-Deist as they come. Rather, if life succeeds ANYWHERE, it will be because God Himself sustains it there.

And God has ALREADY demonstrated His willingness to sustain human life on the moon and in space for long periods of time. Why should I believe that God will suddenly remove His hand if we venture a little further . . . say, to Mars?

Originally posted by kceaster
If God didn't put life there, nor did He create Mars to sustain life, while we could stupidly attempt to do so, we have to maintain that God will not allow Mars to become our second home. To argue for that diminishes God's sovereignty over His universe. . . . Therefore, if God had wanted Mars to sustain life, then He would have done so.

Well, by the same type of logic, you could argue that God didn't want any railroads in North America, because He went so long without letting there be any.

Just for grins: Why do you suppose God created so many millions of planets? (Or at the very least, why do you suppose He created over 70 of them just in our tiny corner of the galaxy?) . . . just so He could prove how many lifeless rocks He could spin around the stars?

Originally posted by kceaster

Let's not make some sort of equivocation here. I'm not saying that technology is in itself, sinful, but what man does with it. You'll recall Babel. That's why I'm saying that any attempt to "slip the surly bonds of earth and touch the face of God," is doomed to failure.

Funny . . . I think we already went a lot higher than the top of Babel when we went into space orbit, and when we went to the moon. So in 1950, I suppose you would have said that any manned space travel whatsoever would be impossible?

In fact, just think about skyscrapers themselves. Do you think the Tower of Babel was taller than the Empire State Building? than the Sears Tower? I highly doubt it. --- But I'm pretty sure the *reasoning* behind building the Empire State Building was much different that the reasoning behind building the Tower of Babel. Thus, I don't think God has a big gripe with the Empire State Building. Do you?

Of course it would be sin to try to launch a space rocket to "slip the surly bonds of earth and touch the face of God", with Babel-like motives, would certainly be sin. But you are not accusing me of that are you? Do you not recognize that I would simply be treating Mars as another part of my God's universe, just as Earth is part of His universe? Do you not believe that I would hold to the WCF just as much on Mars as I do on Earth? Do you think my motives for wanting to travel in space are the same as the motives of the people who built Babel? I surely hope you think better of me than that.

Originally posted by kceaster

In His providence, He's allowed us, yea, even prompted us to do some amazing things.

I agree. So why exactly don't you think that the colonization of Mars would be an "amazing thing" that could be done for His Glory?

Originally posted by kceaster
But the moment we start taking control over things and leaving Him out of it, we need to put on the brakes. Do you agree with cloning and stem cell research? I object to those things for the same reason I object to extra-planetary living.

Since when did I say we should take control over things and leave Him out? I believe 1 Corinthians 10:31 even applies in space. Do all things to the glory of God. Including space exploration and colonization.

Originally posted by kceaster

You know, it's not some sort of cosmic puzzle we can piece together and somehow find out things God never intended us to know. The secrets of His creation are not stumbled upon. He's revealed them and made them known to whomever He wishes. There is not some maze that we may traverse in order to reach areas we were never intended to find.

I totally agree. And thus, 100 years ago, I may have thought space travel would be forever barred to man. (Just read the C.S. Lewis space trilogy, for example . . . he wrote them in such a way that presumed man in general would never be allowed to travel in space.) --- However, God has sovereignly provided man with great space technology in the past few decades. This strongly feeds my belief that God plans for man to eventually conquer Mars, then eventually planets in other solar systems.

Originally posted by kceaster
But when God makes a statement at Babel, Assyria, Babylon, etc., he means that it will never come to pass. Alexander sought out Babylon to rebuild it. He failed. Sadaam Hussein said the same thing, he failed. God said it would be uninhabitable by anything but the jackal, and it is.

Amen. But He has never made a "Babel" statement or a "Babylon" statement about Mars, or about space in general, has He?

Originally posted by kceaster
If He creates for us a habitable planet and told us to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth, that is, the planet He created for us, then we had best accomplish that task before we go seeking another.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no.

1) God is choosing to reveal much space technology to us at THIS time. Why?

2) How do you know that the technology gained in space exploration/colonization won't assist us in subduing the Earth?

3) To what extent does the Earth need to be subued before you will consider space travel to be OK? What is your criteria for "subduing"?

Originally posted by kceaster
Has any of His redemptive history taken place on any other world or in space? The cosmos centered on one historical fact and everything else revolves around it.

So? Before the 15th century, had any redemptive history taken place in any place in North America? Unless you're Mormon, the answer is "no". Does that mean that none of the Puritans should have come to Massachusettes until they made sure everyone in Europe was saved? I don't think so.

Originally posted by kceaster
Personally, between creation mandates and the great commission, I think we have enough to do than to waste our efforts in space. My God shall supply all your need means that He will supply it the way He has designed to do so.

How do you know that space technology is not one of the means He has designed to do so? Clearly, at least some space technology IS in God's decretive will to supply all our needs and work all things for our good . . . otherwise, there wouldn't BE any space technology. But there is!


God created countless planets. One of the nearest ones happens to be Mars. And . . .

"Great are the works of the LORD,
studied by all who have pleasure in them." (Psalm 111:2)

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Augusta

For the record I am not post-millenial and I think this thread may be the nail in the coffin on me ever becoming one.

Why??? What does this thread have to do with whether or not a person decides to be postmillenial? Shouldn't one's eschatology be determined by the Scriptures?

I am postmillenial based on the Scriptures. . . . NOT because of anything I do or do not believe about space travel.

I'm not getting after you. I just really don't understand why you said what you said.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

 

[Don]

Originally posted by Augusta

Originally posted by Don
I found this interesting on the plausibility of inter-stellar travel.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/answersbook/nephilim9.asp#appendix

For the record I am not post-millenial and I think this thread may be the nail in the coffin on me ever becoming one. However. Just because Newtonion physics is the current law of the land doesn't mean we don't have more to learn about physics. As a matter of fact Newtonion physics is on its way out so we can't appeal to that anymore.

We just need the right engine in our ship to go to outer space. I don't know if God will allow that or not. Anybody heard of this guy??

American Antigravity

Force Borne web

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Augusta]

I think that the intent of my post was missed. I was not saying it would be *impossible* rather I was looking at the *plausibility* of interstellar travel. (not that I'm against it either). Unlike biblelighthouse, i dont' think money is the biggest obsticle (remember SpaceShipOne).

Even if you get your propulsion adequate enough for the job, you still have the problems associated with weightlessness, radiation, and the fact that it would take an extremely long time to get anywhere even going the speed of light. Also, it has been said that there are approximately 100,000 particles of dust (composed of ice) for every 1 sq kilometer of space that weight .1 gram each. Colliding into one of these even at a tenth of the speed of light would cause an explosion equal to about 10 tonnes of tnt.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Don
I think that the intent of my post was missed. I was not saying it would be *impossible* rather I was looking at the *plausibility* of interstellar travel. (not that I'm against it either). Unlike biblelighthouse, i dont' think money is the biggest obsticle (remember SpaceShipOne).

Don, I meant that money is the biggest obstacle for near-Earth space travel, not for interstellar space travel . . . those are two different animals. We already have the science needed to go to Mars. But we certainly do not have the science needed to man a trip to Alpha Centauri yet.

I agree that interstellar travel is completely implausible now.
But likewise, trips to the moon were utterly implausible for man when we were still trying to figure out how to perfect a steam-locomotive. There was a lot of technological advancement necessary before the dream of space travel changed into a serious plan, and then reality.

Long before we need to even be thinking about interstellar travel, we need to just focus on our own solar system. Using rocket science that we have already had for decades, it would be very doable to send a manned mission to Mars. That planet alone should keep us busy a few hundred years. By then, maybe Venus will be conquerable as well. Then, a thousand years from now or more, maybe our technology will have advanced so far that interstellar travel is no longer implausible.

We need to take baby steps . . . baby steps . . . I never said we should try to figure out how to get to Alpha Centauri before we first conquer Mars.

Originally posted by Don
Even if you get your propulsion adequate enough for the job, you still have the problems associated with weightlessness, radiation, and the fact that it would take an extremely long time to get anywhere even going the speed of light. Also, it has been said that there are approximately 100,000 particles of dust (composed of ice) for every 1 sq kilometer of space that weight .1 gram each. Colliding into one of these even at a tenth of the speed of light would cause an explosion equal to about 10 tonnes of tnt.

You can spin a vehicle to mimic gravity.

Technology that blocks radiation should continue to improve as time goes by.

Long time equals inconvenience, not impossibility. It is amazing what pioneers are willing to endure.

As for the dust particles, perhaps our technology will improve there, as well. It is not hard to imagine an invention that sends out a wave or infrared beam ahead of the ship, in order to clear out any dust.


Again, just think of much of the technology we have today. It would have looked like impossible magic to people living just 100 years ago. Think of how unbelievable an airplane or spaceship would have looked to the Puritans!

Just because something is implausible today, does not mean that it will not be a reality taken for granted tomorrow.

[Edited on 8-26-2005 by biblelighthouse]

 

[Augusta]

Originally posted by biblelighthouse

Originally posted by Augusta

For the record I am not post-millenial and I think this thread may be the nail in the coffin on me ever becoming one.

Why??? What does this thread have to do with whether or not a person decides to be postmillenial? Shouldn't one's eschatology be determined by the Scriptures?

I am postmillenial based on the Scriptures. . . . NOT because of anything I do or do not believe about space travel.



I'm not getting after you. I just really don't understand why you said what you said.

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

I didn't mean to be glib. I just don't see what you are saying about God possibly not returning for 360,000 years, and people living longer and having lots of kids, and the world being peaceful etc etc. I just don't see that happening this side of glory. I don't see any biblical reasons to think any of that excepting maybe the swords beaten into plowshares passage. I don't claim to have full knowledge of the pm view. What I have heard thus far seems more like lots of fun speculation than sound exegesis. I promise to look a little deeper at it though.

Do you know of any short synopsis or article on the subject to get my feet wet with??

And you were so going after me on the subject.

I was also way too glib.


[Edited on 8-26-2005 by Augusta]

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by Augusta
I didn't mean to be glib. I just don't see what you are saying about God possibly not returning for 360,000 years, and people living longer and having lots of kids, and the world being peaceful etc etc. I just don't see that happening this side of glory. I don't see any biblical reasons to think any of that excepting maybe the swords beaten into plowshares passage. I don't claim to have full knowledge of the pm view. What I have heard thus far seems more like lots of fun speculation than sound exegesis. I promise to look a little deeper at it though.

Ok, I see where you're coming from. And you are certainly correct that this current space-exploration thread has not included any exegetical support for postmillenialism. If this thread was all I had to read, I certainly would not have switched to postmillenialism.

Please understand that none of my statements in this thread were intended to prove postmillenialism. Rather, since I already believe in postmillenialism, that has clearly shown through as a presupposition, and I have not defended it (in this thread).

But you and I are totally in agreement: We should definitely not accept any eschatology without sound Biblical exegesis solidly under our feet. And please undestand that I have studied postmillenialism in Scripture quite a bit . . . I have devoured several books on the subject, and *after* considering their arguments from Scripture, I changed my mind. (Believe it or not, I have not always been postmillenial . . . I used to be a big "Left Behind" fan! Yuck!)

Originally posted by Augusta

Do you know of any short synopsis or article on the subject to get my feet wet with??

I'm glad you asked.

Here is a short synopsis on my website, with links to some articles: http://www.biblelighthouse.com/eschatology/esc-postmillenial.htm

And here is a short synopsis of Postmillenial partial-preterism, which I personally hold to: http://www.biblelighthouse.com/eschatology/esc-preterist.htm

And if you want to read a detailed, book-length, exegetical treatise on Biblical postmillenialism, I highly recommend "He Shall Have Dominion" by Dr. Kenneth Gentry. You can read it free here: http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2202_47e.htm

For a shorter book, "Postmillenialism" by Keith Mathison is also quite good.

Originally posted by Augusta

And you were so going after me on the subject.

I was also way too glib.

No problemo. You have a very sweet spirit, Traci.

 

[biblelighthouse]

Also good:

The Biblical basis of Postmillennialism

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Joseph,

Those are some of the best resources on postmillennialism that I have seen compiled in one place. Thanks for the references!

 

[biblelighthouse]

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Joseph,

Those are some of the best resources on postmillennialism that I have seen compiled in one place. Thanks for the references!

My pleasure! Thank you!