Posted on 09/26/2009 5:33:47 PM PDT by Quix
FROM:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=5065245
June 15, 2008 —
Little green men might shock the secular public. But the Catholic Church would welcome them as brothers.
That's what Vatican chief astronomer and papal science adviser Gabriel Funes explained . . . the newsletter of the Vatican Observatory (translated here). . . . isn't this the same church that imprisoned Galileo . . . Doesn't the Bible say that God created man -- not little green men -- in his image?
. . .
[LAST PARAGRAPH]
. . . "And if there are incredibly advanced civilizations with a belief in God, I don't think Richard Dawkins will start believing."
Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Or, if you have an interest in THE END TIMES.
The Papists want to eat us TOO???
Damn.
But the Catholic Church would welcome them as brothers. ............................. Great, what if they are the Borg? sarc/
Resistance would be feudal if they had their way.
They may call themselves christians, but are according to the bible, fools.
With friends like you, who would need enemies.
I initially thought this was a new article.
But now, I think I posted the original source article from the Vatican months ago . . . and
RC’s hereon claimed that such an office of the Vatican had no authority whatsoever etc. etc. etc.
Seems like there’s no end of rationalizations in that quarter.
For far too many, it appears that you may be, to a high degree, shockingly right.
LOL.
Clever
Catholics would judge by natural law here.
When some experts were calling the American Indians non humans 500 years ago, the Pope said no, they were human...
Men are created in God’s image, but there is no place in tradition or the bible that says there can’t be life elsewhere (indeed, angels are “alien life forms: see CS Lewis’ space trilogy).
And if you want to bash Catholics, think about this: The British Bishops said that if an animal with a large number of human genes was “engineered” it should be treated as human since they aren’t sure.
The “Christian” science fiction about animal/human beings getting their rights as God’s creatures are in Cordwainer Smith’s short stories...
Not interested in bashing Roman Catholics as a group per se.
Am interested in noting ANYTHING IN ANY GROUP WHICH HINDERS RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD
AND
WHICH WOULD FALL PREY TO SATANIC DELUSION IN THE END TIMES . . .
e. g. calling FALLEN ANGELS candidates for Salvation as critters from distant planets
when they are WHOLESALE [whatever they are] they are WHOLESALE ACTIVELY, ENERGETICALLY WORKING TO SET UP SATAN’S GLOBAL GOVERNMENT.
NOT NICE CRITTERS WHATEVER THEY ARE WHEN THAT’S THEIR COMPANY AND GOAL.
. . . when they are WHOLESALE [whatever they are] they are WHOLESALE ACTIVELY, ENERGETICALLY WORKING TO SET UP SATAN’S GLOBAL GOVERNMENT.
NOT NICE CRITTERS WHATEVER THEY ARE WHEN THAT’S THEIR COMPANY AND GOAL.
########################################
AND . . . IF THE POPE DARES to pontificate about Papal infallibility in pronouncing such critters wonderful space brothers here to save us . . . by some infallible encyclical . . . then that and even lesser supportive pronouncements by him would spell out clearly
who’s side he was on, too.
Stick-a-fork-in-the-Papacy ping!
So, just to make sure I have this straight, you (and presumably other fundamentalist Christians), if confronted with intelligent non-terrestrial aliens, then you would assume that they were actually demons from Satan and that this was the beginning of Armageddon?
So called Evangelical Christians cover the waterfront in their beliefs about ET’s.
The better informed are at least aware that they are
1. helping the globalist set up the satanic world government.
2. operant in abductions etc. exclusively with persons who have opened a spiritual door through some sort of occult activity even if ‘only’ following horoscopes . . . often with a long family history of occultic activity.
3. Jesus’ Name and blood applied in spiritual warfare fashion has been verified—just recently again—via a 300+subject study of Jesus’ Name preventing and even stopping in the midst of such . . . all such activity—PARTICULARLY FOR THOSE WITH A RELATIONSHIP WTIH JESUS. There are a very small handful of cases—really quite fiew—where such seems to be a reminder of the New Testament Scripture . . .
. . . where onlookers decided to try and deliver a demonized man “in the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches.”
The demons cried out—”Jesus we know. Paul we know. Who . . . are you?” and then set upon them most destructively.
In a very few cases where the individuals showed no evidence of a relationship with Jesus nor of wanting a relationship with Jesus, applying His name in their cases did not work.
#########
FOR DISCUSSION, JUST ASSUME, PRETEND, IF YOU MUST,
THAT THE ABOVE POINTS ARE QUITE TRUE . . . as I assure you they are . . . but if you need to—JUST PRETEND THEY ARE TRUE.
THEN WHAT WOULD YOU FEEL, BELIEVE, THINK, DO?
SORRY.
I don’t understand the text at all.
OK, side question: Let’s say some probe discovers non-intelligent life elsewhere in the solar system. What would be the Evangelical response to this discovery?
I carefully, thoughtfully and at some length answered your question in good faith.
It’s your turn to answer my question similarly thoughtuflly, at some length and in good faith.
Then I’ll answer your 2nd question.
The rest of us, not buying into those premises, would adopt a more wait-and-see attitude towards any aliens intentions. I, personally, would not necessarily assume that visiting aliens were necessarily benevolent, but this would be more due to my cynical and suspicious nature (cultivated over many decades)
Thanks.
I think I understand.
Evangelical Christianity would likely be all over the waterfront about unintelligent life.
Those most . . . orthodox and most intense in their relationship with God would not consider it proof of evolution but proof of God’s vastness and all powerfulness.
Many would probably yawn. Many would wait and see about therefore what.
Those of ATTACHMENT DISORDER bent from early childhood less than ideal parenting would likely pull the covers over their heads and pretend and pontficate from a very narrow and rigid defensive perspective.
Me . . . wouldn’t bother me in the least. I expect other worlds.
In a sense the Scripture about the gates of the New Jersalem being made of a single pearl each . . . in a sense . . . proves life on other planets.
While HE COULD use the replicator function of merely speaking things into existence . . . it seems to me that . . .
God has a preference for doing things the
OLD FASHIONED WAY.
Therefore, I believe that each of those pearls comes from some very very very very big oysters in a very interesting ocean on some very interesting planet somewhere.
Scripture says that
ALL CREATION GROANS EAGERLY YEARNING FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF THE SONS OF GOD.
Whatever that means, it means, to me, that this planet is not the sum total of God’s paragon priorities though it is in some key respects.
Personally, I don’t think that belief in God is incompatible with being able to accept that He may have decided to create more than one version of Man.
Conceivable . . .
keeping in mind that Scripture insists that Christ created all that was created.
Now, getting back to my earlier question about reaction to “First Contact”: do you think that many Evangelicals who would view the aliens as demons from Satan would initiate violent hostilities against them, or would they wait for an open sign of bad intentions on the aliens part?
>>> “Indeed, many observers assert that aliens would be bad for believers. Jill Tarter, director of the Center for SETI Research, once wrote that finding intelligent other-worldly life ‘will be inconsistent with the existence of God or at least organized religions.’ But such predictions tend to come from outside Christianity. From within, theologians have debated the implications of alien contact for centuries. And if one already believes in angels, no great leap of faith is required to accept the possibility of other extraterrestrial intelligences.
Tarter is an ignoramus. Brandon Keim did his research.
Theologians have debated the possibility of other worlds — and inhabited other worlds — since almost the beginning of Christian apologetics.
The basic idea starts with the Ancient Greeks, namely Democritus. Have you read Steven Dick’s _Plurality of Worlds_ or Michael Crowe’s _The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900_? Worth the effort if you haven’t. Dick takes it from Democritus to Laplace and Kant. Crowe covers Dick’s material in his first chapter, then starts with Kant and ends with Lowell and the Mars controversy.
By the way, didn’t Bill Graham say something about witnessing to ETs back in the 70s?
Would depend on a lot of factors . . .
Were they reared in the Western States and older than 50?
Was their Evangelicalism intensely . . . patriotic, heart-felt, somewhat merged as in GOD, COUNTRY, MOM AND APPLE PIE?
Were they from their rearing prone to be defensive, shoot and ask questions later . . . or not . . .
How psychologically, emotionally insecure were they as individuals around DIFFERENCE?
How much did they hear and follow Holy Spirit obediently?
How much were they convinced that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” and how did they relate that to “the righteous take . . . by force?”
How central a role did they perceive the critters to be playing in satan’s global government?
How much danger did they see in assaulting such critters and how much did they care about that danger?
On these and a list of other variables, the Evangelicals would be all over the water front. There would be a bell curve on all those variables.
How would they distill out and overlap and feed and sukpplement and embelish one another—the variables? I don’t know.
I think 55% or more of Evangelicals in the Mountain West and further West except for the Left Coast . . . would be inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.
Probably the same in the South.
Probably the same in the rual midwest.
Less so elsewhere.
Probably the best I can guess off the top of my head.
Now, where does such a question spring from and what do you want the guess for?
I think Billy Graham said something about witnessing to ET’s or some such back in the 70’s.
I had long speculated that the powers that be had consulted him and brought him into some awareness on the topic.
I am skeptical that he was told that much if he didn’t realize who’s side they were on.
Of course there are those on the net who ar hostile to Graham. However, I know folks who knew Graham personally and insist he was the most authentic, humble, pure Christian they’d known in all their lives.
Is it CONCEIVABLE that there are real ET’s out there who are not in cahoots with satan and the globalists?
CONCEIVABLE. However, in studying this since 1962,
I have NEVER come across any who I think would qualify.
Virtually all such ‘races’ are known to be chronic liars even by the government ops folks who mysteriously yet trust them. Go figure.
The short of it is that they are all in cahoots with the globalists setting up satan’s horrific END TIMES government.
What more does one NEED to know
in order to know
who’s side they are on???
Proceeding from the assumption that such ETs were not actually minions of Satan, and were (initially) peaceful in intent, estimating the probability that Evangelicals would attempt to create the interstellar equivalent of the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria.
BTW,
The points I gave you above were NOT presuppositions. Far from it.
After studying it since 1962, I consider those points absolute fact.
It is quite conceivable that satan has set up two different ‘races’ of ET’s/fallen angels to play a good cop/bad copy role in coercing, scaring the world’s citizens into a global government.
Or, one such could be the leaders in ‘saving us and the planet from ourselves’ a la the pollution environmental stuff scenarios.
As to the assassination thing . . .
1. the massess of critters . . . who often seem to operate more on a hive mentality and connection vs a strictly hierarchical one . . . are unlikely to have a figurehead who’s assassination would be that troublesome. They seem to treat their fallen cohorts with less concern than we do.
2. I’d think it much more likely that some black ops folks would be tasked with playing the role of Evangelical assassins . . . in order to justify some level of retaliation by the ET/FALLEN ANGEL/GLOBALIST POWERS THAT BE
upon the innocent Evangelicals.
We’ll need to agree to disagree. I do not subscribe to the version of reality that you are convinced of. Thanks for the discussion FRiend.
Fair enough . . . to a point.
However, I’ll stack my rooms full of docs etc. up against anyone else’s any day.
However, the best site that does so better than I could or have time for is:
Scripture is clear that if any other critters come preaching any other gospel, consider him accursed.
If any other critters deny that Christ came in the flesh etc., consider them accursed.
The critters claim to have CREATED Jesus etc. etc. and mankind . . .
Do you claim to be a Christian, at all, of any flavor?
You have a lot of company.
However, at some point that looks to be looming nearer and nearer, events will begin falling literally out of the sky into folks . . . nightly news or laps . . .
It will be interesting to see how many can adjust their constructions on reality quickly enough to avoid dying of heart attacks or self-inflicted gun-shot wounds.
My research since 1962 has enabled me, by God’s grace, to anticipate the trends that have been gathering speed and influence.
I haven’t come across anyone else who’s constructions on reality has had anything similar to that degree of utility in predicting trends.
They've been thinking about it for a while. Cynthia Anne Miller Smith's college thesis deals with the history:
Modern Christian thinkers from the twentieth to twenty-first century often believe that speculation on the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life is a recent phenomenon - the product of the nuclear age, space travel, and modern science fiction.Full text (long):In point of fact, Christian scholars and intellectuals have been discussing the theological implications of intelligent life on other worlds for nearly two-thousand years. They have asked whether inhabitants of other worlds, like human beings, are creatures with souls made in the spiritual image of God; whether they have fallen from grace or are sinners in need of Redemption; whether the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is a unique universal event affecting the whole of creation; whether Jesus Christ came to redeem and save inhabitants of other worlds as well as human beings by his grace via his life, death, and resurrection; whether the mission of the Catholic Church is to spread the Gospel throughout the cosmos, baptizing all creatures, humans and nonhumans alike; whether the very existence of such inhabitants contradicts or supports certain interpretations of the Bible’s view of the special nature of humanity; and whether their existence implies or denies the intelligent design of the universe.
This thesis will explore these questions and consider whether the answers are consistent with the concepts of redemption, justification, sanctification, and salvation as historically put forth by the Catholic Church and various other Christian groups . . .
Frederick William Cronhelm (argues) in his short book entitled Thoughts on the Controversy As to a Plurality of Worlds (London, 1858) that the universe cannot be strewn with a plurality of worlds lest we have “a Bethlehem in Venus, a Gethsemane in Jupiter, a Calvary in Saturn”.
However, other Christian authors from recent centuries argue the opposite is the case, claiming that the Logos becomes incarnate on inhabited worlds throughout the cosmos.
Still others like Rev. Josiah Crampton (1809 – 1883) argue that “the material heavens [are] places of habitation” because Jesus ascended into heaven. Ernan McMullin of Notre Dame University writes that theologians have been largely silent on the issues of whether the work of Christ extends to inhabitants of other worlds or whether the Logos has become or will become incarnate on a multiplicity of worlds, but John Jefferson Davis writes that McMullin seems to be unaware of the research of Steven Dick and Michael Crowe, both of whom indicate clearly that such speculations have been going on at least since the third century A.D.
Since a number of Christians believe that Jesus is physically in heaven, some speculate that it follows that he has become or may yet become incarnate in many worlds. Is this position theologically sound, or does Christian theology demand that the Incarnation be unique to the Earth? . . .
In this thesis, I demonstrate that, prior to the twentieth century, the vast majority of intellectuals in the West express the belief that a plurality of populated worlds may exist, and many Christians attempt to reconcile Christianity with such pluralism.
I believe it is consistent with Catholic teachings, as well as with certain of the authors and theologians discussed in this thesis, to believe that inhabitants of other worlds, like human beings, are creatures with souls made in the spiritual image of God whose spiritual essence and physical forms of hnauare incidental to their relationship to his true image.
Some Greek philosophers argue that the notion of an exclusively singular world is ludicrous, and the myths of many ancient peoples populate the heavens with gods and goddesses who are certainly non-terrestrial in origin. Some Medieval scholars fight charges of heresy to argue that the heavens are teeming with inhabited worlds, while some Renaissance scholars believe that all of the planets in our solar system contain intelligent beings more or less like humans . . .
Long before the twentieth century, public debates raged about whether inhabitants populate other worlds and, if so, how this hypothesis affects Christianity, Christians, and Christian theology, particularly the doctrines of the Incarnation and redemption of Christ. William of Vorilong (1390 – 1463), a Franciscan theologian and author of a widely quoted commentary on the Sentences of Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142), believes that inhabitants of other worlds would not sin after the manner of Adam . . .
A little more than a century later, Philip Melanchthon (1497 – 1560), a German disciple of Martin Luther, espouses the early Protestant view that a plurality of worlds violates Scripture, and since in his belief Scripture is the sole rule of faith, God would not have made other worlds without saying so in the Bible . . .
A generation later, Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642), an Italian astronomer, mathematician, and natural philosopher, expresses concern about how his Catholic Church might react to the speculation of the effects of the Incarnation and redemption on inhabitants of other worlds and so denies that otherworldly beings exist, though it is not clear what beliefs he would have asserted without such constraints. Galileo’s friend, the Jesuit Giovanni Ciampoli (1589 – 1643), a brilliant Latinist, warns Galileo in 1615 that ideas about inhabitants on other worlds have profound consequences when taking into consideration the view that such inhabitants are not descendents of Adam nor descendents of Noah.
To solve this problem, Tommaso Campanella (1568 – 1634), an Italian philosopher and writer, attempts to reconcile Catholic teachings with Renaissance humanism and defends Galileo, speculating about the plurality of worlds theory by insisting that such theories do not violate Catholic teachings (including Scripture) but merely the teachings of Aristotle . . .
Timothy Dwight (1752 – 1817), an American theologian, poet, minister, and Yale president from 1795 to 1817, writes a series of sermons collected as Theology Explained and Defended in which he argues that Christ’s Incarnation and redemption are not only unique to Earth but that redemption applies only to human beings, even though he is a pluralist in favor of worlds whose inhabitants Christ rules . . .
Shadows of Things to Come: The Theological Implications of Intelligent Life on Other Worlds
Colossians 2:17 These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.
Thanks.
Fascinating.
Thanks for the ping!
Wow, your out there enough to be an alien yourself senior.
I would recommend reading: Catholic Q & A by John J. Dietzen; it may give you some insight to many misconceptions of the Catholic Faith.
I've had a lot of Roman Catholics hereon tell me a LOT about the so called "misconceptions."
However, over the years, they THEMSELVES HEREON HAVE RELENTLESSLY PROVEN that a LOT of those "misconceptions" are horrifically true for a
very disturbingly sizeable percentage of folks who call themselves RC.
Clearly, as the recent Selection proved, folks who call themselves RC's are all over the waterfront politically.
It appears they are also all over the waterfront theologically.
And, they are all over the waterfront in their RELIGIOUS PRACTICES.
EVEN THE FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE, FAIRLY BIBLICALLY ORTHODOX RC'S HEREON ARE QUITE DIVERSE IN THEIR SPIRITUALITY AND QUITE DIVERSE IN THEIR SPIRITUAL PRACTICES AND IN THEIR RELIGIOUS PRACTICES.
IT'S A VERY LAUGHABLE FARCE when one pontificates about
'AUTHENTIC ROMAN CATHOLOCISM.'
According to WHOM?
Even the Pope and the Magisterical are all over the landscape--usually IN ONE ENCYCLICAL! They don't just speak out of both sides of his mouth at the same time--they speak out of all sides and top and bottom of his mouth and out of 10 sides of his fingers.
And yet ya'll pretend that one is to take the hillariously ridiculous farcical assertion that Roman Catholocism has been a seamless homogeneous whole pure and true to God and Scripture from before the organization's founding in 300-400AD TO THE PRESENT . . . AS REMOTELY BELIEVABLE???
WHAT AN OUTRAGEOUS DELUSION!
ONLY THE BRAIN DEAD AND THE BRAINWASHED could believe such an outrageously historically inaccurate lie.
I used to have a fair amount of admiration and respect for most RC's.
The RC's hereon have pretty well shredded that. A few have reminded me that there ARE SOME FEW (PERCENTAGE-WISE) within the RC edifice who merit consideration as authentic Biblical Christians--at least on the whole.
The rest strike me more as an obscene joke on Christendom more in keeping with the bureaucratic RELIGIOUS intellectually educated political power-mongers managing the Temple 2000 years ago.
Ah, well, Pentecostalism has it's share of such obscene jokes, too. Though in my experience, we own them and deal with them much more frequently and much more candidly.
And, God seems increasingly on the brink of dealing with all the different congregations pretending to be Christian in a redemptive and/or judgment sort of way. HE WILL HAVE a spotless Church Universal ready for His Son as Bride.
And the folks cast aside whether for lukewarmness, idolatry, sham religion . . . or whatever such will likely outnumber the authentic Christ-LIKE folks in every congregation and organization.
So, I'm FORCED, more or less, to take all this NOISE about "misconceptions" with a 1/10th of a single grain of salt.
JUST OBJECTIVELY, OBSERVATINALLY, IT'S A PILE OF GROSSLY HYPOCRITICAL STINKING HOGWASH.
Folks in the Roman Catholic congregations are clearly more or less like folks in a lot of other "Christian" congregatins the world over of every flavor and brand.
Some really Love God and follow Him and His Holy Spirit's leading as earnestly and authentically as they can day by day in LOVING GOD SUPREMELY AND OTHERS AS THEMSELVES AND LIVING A BIBLICAL GOD-FEARING, GOD-PLEASING LIFE.
And a LOT of others do quite otherwise.
That's not greatly different in the RC congregations than it is in virtually any other congregation.
An interesting aspect about angels is that they are qualified as being either fallen or elect. If elect, some theologic implications have been made, that a salvation mechanism exists for angels as well as man, with a major distinction of man, after Adam, was first condemned prior to salvation, while angels already had eternal life prior to condemnation.
No need, there are plenty of believers who slip out of faith, then attempt to study Scripture and perform good works which are righteous in their own eyes, while not being in faith through Christ. to sincerely believe they are ushering in the Kingdom of heaven by their works. They might very well be Evangelical, but simply degenerate in their thinking. Same can and has happened to every religious denomination. It's one of the Adversary's more popular techniques.
Outstanding observation.
For those who are easily dismissive about Quix’s posts as being a RC basher, please read post 39.
The major observation being made is that within the Church, not only are there true believers who slip out of fellowship with God, and degenerate, there also are those who never were believers who sneak in unawares, not only in what is called the Roam Catholic Church (denominationally), but into all areas of what is the true Church.
If they’re rational animals, I figure they’re fit for (which is to say, in need of) salvation. Paul is pretty clear that what IHS did is cosmic in its reach. I can see those who think that original sin is passed down in the Y-chromosome might have a different opinion.
The Catholic Church serves among Protestants the same function that the USSR served until recently in Europe. Those who otherwise would be at each other's throats unite in their opposition to us.
It's not exactly the unity we had in mind, but what they hey .....
THAT is very funny!
I must admit that I don’t know very much about angels. What’s you’re source on the fallen/elect qualification? Dionysius the Areopagite?
Nah, just Scripture and a fist o’cuffs.
I QUITE AGREE WHOLESALE.
EXCELLENT POINTS.
THANKS.
BLESSED BE THE NAME AND WAYS OF THE LORD.
INDEED.
THANKS FOR YOUR KIND WORDS AND FOR SHARING YOUR SOLID, ACCURATE OBSERVATIONS.
Thanks for your reply.
The EVIDENCE, though, MD, is that the critters are
1. wholesale on the side of the satanic globalists setting up the satanic END TIMES global government.
2. chronic liars.
3. fallen angels.
imho, ALL the best evidence and essentially ALL the evidence is toward that conclusion—particularly if followed out far enough and considered thoughtfully enough.
Guy Malone’s research is extensive and more than convincing, imho.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.