Because Christianity doesn’t exist outside of, and was developed specifically within, Earth. So I’m wondering what about Christianity specifically, as it relates to establishing hierarchy and subjugation, would even remotely apply to a system of life elsewhere in the universe that may not operate within such frameworks of hierarchy and subjugation. That’s been the dominant force of civilized humanity and religion for us of course, but if the framework of Christianity doesn’t even make sense for say another form of life, anthropologically speaking, then claims of universality start to break down I think.
But we are talking about God and not Christianity alone. Who cares if Christianity was developed on Earth? The God we worship is present everywhere, even in the other possible civilizations
But our entire understanding and moral framework of this god is only applicable to our experience as humans though right? If another form of life had an entirely different understanding of their god, based on their anthropological development and relative moral systems, how do we know we're each referring to the same god? Or if we're not, how do we know which interpretation is right? I think the answer for me is, we can't really ever solve that question, because each concept of god is a relative construct. And so talking about it on the level of which one is "right" doesn't apply and is just as illogical as asking which one of these life forms is more "correct." I guess I'm just struggling to understand one species claiming the god developed within their framework applies to other species and supersedes that other species' claim of a universal god which came from their own framework.
Because Christianity doesn’t exist outside of, and was developed specifically within, Earth. So I’m wondering what about Christianity specifically, as it relates to establishing hierarchy and subjugation, would even remotely apply to a system of life elsewhere in the universe that may not operate within such frameworks of hierarchy and subjugation. That’s been the dominant force of civilized humanity and religion for us of course, but if the framework of Christianity doesn’t even make sense for say another form of life, anthropologically speaking, then claims of universality start to break down I think.
But we are talking about God and not Christianity alone. Who cares if Christianity was developed on Earth? The God we worship is present everywhere, even in the other possible civilizations
But our entire understanding and moral framework of this god is only applicable to our experience as humans though right? If another form of life had an entirely different understanding of their god, based on their anthropological development and relative moral systems, how do we know we're each referring to the same god? Or if we're not, how do we know which interpretation is right? I think the answer for me is, we can't really ever solve that question, because each concept of god is a relative construct. And so talking about it on the level of which one is "right" doesn't apply and is just as illogical as asking which one of these life forms is more "correct." I guess I'm just struggling to understand one species claiming the god developed within their framework applies to other species and supersedes that other species' claim of a universal god which came from their own framework.