Alien Worlds? More Q's than meets the eye

[spauline]

Alien Worlds? More Q’s than meets the eye

For one, other alien worlds would be of two categories: Fallen and not fallen.

If they are not fallen, i suppose the situation is simple: they will look upon our fallen world with curiosity, like angels beholding the events of earth.

On the other hand, if a particular world falls, my argument is, based on all my writings thus far, that they would need the same history that we do, which necessarily implies that the Eternal Son would need to incarnate Himself into that world as well.

Put it this way: Would the Jews or Gentiles of this world have been able to handle an alien Christ?

And this is the absurdity of assuming, like a particular Catholic apologist said recently, that the lot of a fallen alien world that is ignorant of Christ is not any different than the ignorance of the Indians in the Americas.

Now, hold it right there, Mr Apologist, have you really thought through this carerfully enough? I can solemnly assure you, very few Catholics of even deep thought in recent history have thought hard enough about it.

It necessarily calls into question the very theology of our own world’s history. It is one thing to have all the creatures of a PARTICULAR fallen world pass through introductory stages and then a great portion of them migrate to a far away place of the world, only to much later receive the greater Divine Revelation much later than the other portion of the world, but it is an entire other question if a world falls and is not given ANY Divine Revelation or Intervention until beings of the chosen Divinely Guided world come from space and tell them.

Why? This brings up the entire issue of why God established first Judaism before Catholicism. Catholicism already knows the basic reason: The world is so materialistic and tending toward paganism in beginning stages because of the fallen nature, that there is no conceivable way that God could bring the fullness of truth in the Incarnation too early after the Fall. For this reason, a PREFIGURING Covenant that uses many facets of the material world must first be given to at least a portion of the creatures to anticipate the spiritual mysteries that shall fulfill the merely physical signs in the New.

But if another world falls and has no Divine Revelation whatsoever, how shall deal with an alien Christ, when they will be no different than the Gentiles were prematurely before Judaism completed its mysterious path, since, there is no Judaism in that world? But if there IS Judaism, must not the Incarnate One come as one of them? For how can the Messias be an alien to Jew and Gentile alike?

And this is even beyond the question that if a world falls, how shall it survive self destruction because of wickedness if something like the Flood does not occur?

There is more than meets the eye, folks, more than meets the eye.

In our first preliminary argument, in the next post, we shall see that had God not sent the Flood the world would have ended in that first age. Which shows that if any world falls, an initial positive chastising and merciful Divine Internvention is necessary to “restrain” the world’s self destruction before having any chance of being redeemed.

 

[Ismael]

For one, other alien worlds would be of two categories: Fallen and not fallen.

If they are not fallen, i suppose the situation is simple: they will look upon our fallen world with curiosity, like angels beholding the events of earth.

Well if indeed there are aliens (which is still speculation) they too might have fallen.

Recently a catholic theologian (I forgot the name sorry) said:
“The gap between Man and Angel is very wide, it’s not impossible that there are other sentient cretures that fill such gap.”

And this is even beyond the question that if a world falls, how shall it survive self destruction because of wickedness if something like the Flood does not occur?

It’s possible that some worlds have fallen and are now ‘damned’, although not necessarely self-destroyed.
They would be very wicked and meterialst worlds indeed.

But if another world falls and has no Divine Revelation whatsoever, how shall deal with an alien Christ, when they will be no different than the Gentiles were prematurely before Judaism completed its mysterious path, since, there is no Judaism in that world? But if there IS Judaism, must not the Incarnate One come as one of them? For how can the Messias be an alien to Jew and Gentile alike?

Here there are several points to consider

1- Will God save a fallen alien race?

Let’s consider a race much more advanced (I am peaking here of a spiritual advancement, not technological one), that are between the nature of angels and the nature of man.

If this race falls will it be saved? It depends. If the nature of this race resembles a lot the angelic one, hence their choice is ‘absolute’ (like the one the angels made) then they cannot be ‘saved’ as a rece.
The members of a race who chose good will be rewarded, those that chose evil will be sent to hell.

---

A race not so ‘advanced’ (again in a spiritual sense) might be saved. The question is ‘would that require God to become incarnate as an alien?’

A second question would be: is the fall in the beginning of the race (their Adam and Eve) or after alien A. and E. have populated the world?
In the second case a part of the population will be subjected to sin and the other is not. Does the whole race need saving? Is in this case an incarnation needed?

---

2- The purpose of the incarnation of Christ as true Man and True God

A-Redemption

God redeemed us through Christ who is the “New Adam” (being also fully human but free from sin like Adam was originally).

Christs as the new Adam rectifies Adam’s error with His obbedience and in virtue of His sacrifice on the cross and His resurrection he saves us from sin.

---

B- Thesis as consequence of redemption

St. Athansius said:
“God became man, so man could become God”

and the scriptures say (2 Peter 1:4):
“”“Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.”"""

and (2 Cor 3:18)
“”""(we are) transformed into his likeness from glory to glory. “”""

And again Aquinas:
“The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

This is referred to "Theosis’ where ‘man becomes god’ due to ‘supernatural adoption’.

Now let’s NOT confuse ourselves (to avoid heresies )! This does not mean that humans become like God himself (like the mormons for example believe).
It means that we partecipate in the divinity of God through Christ.

Christ Divine person (ie He is God) with a divine and human nature, not confused, but united in the one person, we are simply human, with ONLY a human nature that will take part in God’s divinity through Christ (so we are not ‘God’ ourselves, but we are “gods” through Christ, the term ‘gods’ to be taken losely).

Well how does theosis happen? Through Christ`as I said, because He is both God AND Human.

---

After this long premesis we come to a conclusion: Redemption and Theosis happen because Christ incarnated as a MAN, hence a human being, sharing his nature with us.
By this sharing we are saved and adopted supernaturally as ‘God’s children’.

The question is:
Does this apply to non-humans?

It seems not to be the case. Hence our savior, Christ, came to save us humans alone, not other species.

Of course this does not mean tha God can incarnate into another being as well, He’s after all omnipotent.

So an ‘alien Christ’ will have no direct meaning for our salvation but only for the salvation of other species.

Is this unreasonable? I think not. It’s not unprobable that communication is completely impossible between two sentient species in the universe (especially if they are in different galaxies or worse different clusters of galaxies).

hence the mission of Christ here will be completely unknown to an alien species. Hence, if indeed an alien species falls, and God want to save it by the incarnation, it;s reasonable to think it will be a separate incarnation.

==================

I conclude with the statement that what said above about ‘aliens’ redemption’, ‘alien incanrnation of God’ etc… is completly speculative.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Since we have no conclusive evidence that there are indeed beings elsewhere with the potential for spiritual and moral life comparable to our own, it’s useless to speculate on what plans God has for them in the world to come.

 

[spauline]

Ismael, I have to respond later. But for now, here are some more thoughts:

I would like to comment further.

I may be in over my head, I’m just trying to ponder our own world.

Soon, I will, for others who may persist in watching the thread, begin to flesh out more clearly where I am coming from.

For now, let me summarize this:

The Catholic Church already knows why God creates creatures with intellect and will: that they may share the life, love, and knowledge of the Trinity. That was why He made the angels, that why He made us, and that is why He would make any creature in this universe that had a soul like we do.

That being said, the motto of our existence, as expressed in the Baltimore Catechism, would be the motto of ANY material creature with a soul in this universe, namely, the following two principles:

i. To know, love, and serve God in this world
ii. To be happy with God forever in the next life

This means that the just of any material world, whether ours or another, would have these main dispositions.
Consequently, the nature of the fall would be the same for any world in this universe.

Which is to say this: If the above two principles summarize all goodness for the just in this world, so the total negation of these two principles would form the basis of all that is fallen and wicked in ANY world.

Therefore, the fallen creatures of another world who totally subscribed to the fall would be the same as in our world:

i. NO regard to know, love and serve God in this world
ii. NO regard for being with God forever in the next life, and therefore living only for this world superficially.

IOW, the same spirit of rebellion and indifference to God and religion that we see in this world would also be the condition of other fallen worlds, IF they fell. That is, the creatures would rebel against caring about what God’s truth is and to obey it and would live only selfishly for the material creation.

Given that, we can extrapolate that already in the antiquity of an alien fallen world, God’s choices with how to deal with it will be motivated by the same factors that He had to deal with for us.

I will extrapolate later, but for now, anyone following this thread with interest can digest this and dialogue or question as needed.

Also, in response to your comment, it may be true that no two persons on this world are alike, but on the other hand, there are laws and dogmas about common things between us. We are all fallen, having the same tendency both to rebel against God and to be converted. We are all sexual, we all have a soul-- intellect and will. The persons of this world can fall into one of several religious categories: Catholics, schismatics, heretics, Jews, infidels, pagans, apostates. The laws of justification apply to all of us. The seven sacraments are available to all Catholics and schismatics. Baptism and Marriage are the only sacraments that can had, either implicitly or explicitly, by those who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

Another thing we will remember in this discourse is that God in many great cases does not create arbitrarily but with TEACHING INTENTION, that is, He builds into the Creation visible signs that point to spiritual mysteries. This is a great primary aspect of Catholic theology, teaching, and thought.

So, for example, we could ask ourselves, even though God could create rational material creatures that were asexual, would He actually do that? For if God desires of His own benevelonce to teach mysteries through nature, and since Catholicism knows that human sexuality is the most profound sign of the creation–imaging, on the one hand, the Trinity through the human family [man, woman, and child shew imperfectly the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], and on the other hand, Christ and the Church through man and woman–why would God NOT create an alien sexual?

Things to think about, and so forth.

Similarly, if the fallen nature constantly returns by the force of Original Sin after God’s greater redemptive actions in OUR history, we could ask, would not that same principle apply to an alien world that fell? After all, we have just seen that, almost certainly, the alien creatures would have the same principles governing their fallen nature as we do.

These are all things to consider.

I will go into more depth later, but for now, any of those interesting probing ahead of time could go into my articles section and read the articles that are titled, Amongst all Possible Worlds, the Things that would always be, parts I through VI. They flesh alot of this our in much more detail.

 

[spauline]

Hi, Ismael,

I definitely agree that degree of knowledge of a creature plays into the question of a world. I guess, however, that God would desire to draw the greatest possible good from a material creation, which would then preclude giving the material creatures the fullness of Revelation before their fall.

The reason the angels have the fullness of Divine Knowledge in pre-Beatific Vision form is because it cannot be any other way. Their intellects transcend material steps and so can understand instantaneously everything, or at least in only a few steps.

But with a material world, there is no reason why God would want to impart the angelic knowledge to material creatures before their fall, when He could draw so much greater good by progressing it like He did in our world.

 

[spauline]

also, ismael, how can a world that is given over to wickedness and materialism not destroy itself very shortly without divine intervention?

For, is it not implied that were it not for the FLood, the world would have ended before ever having a chance to be redeemed?

For, like JPII puts it, what is the inevitable fruit of a culture of death [spiritual death] except physical death?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Sorry…can’t resist:

Isn’t the Q Continuum representable by a weigh station on a desert road where everyone is bored or a civil war reenactment?

 

[Areopagite]

Sorry…can’t resist:

Isn’t the Q Continuum representable by a weigh station on a desert road where everyone is bored or a civil war reenactment?

Yep. I remember that. The answer was for the Q’s to start having babies. (I’m not even joking … very pro-life strangely enough).

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Areopagite -

Coincidently, I was thinking about Christ and alien worlds a few nights ago.
At one time, I devoured scifi magazines and books. Then, in the mid '70’s, I began to subdue my scifi nature to my religious nature.

So, I’ve read your post. At this time, my opinion is, that since the devil is the prince of only this earth; and if and only if there are intelligent creatures on other planets; then, they would not have reason to fall, the tempter restrained to our planet. It then follows, we would be the only fallen planet, the creatures on other planets still walking with God, like Adam and Enoch.

Another premise upon which I base my reasoning, is that the incarnation, suffering, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of our Lord is a…one…time…only…happening.

Therefore,
if and only if there are intelligent creatures on other planets,
and if and only if one or more of those worlds were fallen,
then if follows that Christ Jesus himself would go to them in his ascended and glorified body, to set them straight.

That’s the way I look at it, just my two cents worth.

 

[Areopagite]

Then, in the mid '70’s, I began to subdue my scifi nature to my religious nature.

I understand why you would do this. However, I do not think these things are opposed. I think it’s a false dichotomy that has been instilled in us by certain/particular sci-fi literature (and shows). C.S. Lewis evidently didn’t think they were opposed intrinsically. Just thought I’d mention that. However, I suppose if you were really anti-Catholic sci-fi stuff, then I understand.

At this time, my opinion is, that since the devil is the prince of only this earth; and if and only if there are intelligent creatures on other planets; then, they would not have reason to fall, the tempter restrained to our planet. It then follows, we would be the only fallen planet, the creatures on other planets still walking with God, like Adam and Enoch.

Interesting theory. You may have a point here. Here are my (possible) objections:

• Do you really think the devil is only the prince of this earth? Is this a safe inference from Scripture? If so, then it seems to be that Satan would not have power over astronauts currently in orbit. No? It is quite possible that the devil has power over everything in the universe (provided God allows him). I think, unfortunately, that is probably the case.
• Even if the devil was not involved in an alien species, this does not make it impossible for that species to fall. The devil didn’t need a tempter to make himself fall.
• There could be another host of devils assigned to alien worlds anyway, and if aliens exist, this is probably the case. (although conceivably, Satan could rule over them all).

Another premise upon which I base my reasoning, is that the incarnation, suffering, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of our Lord is a…one…time…only…happening.

I dispute this. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. I don’t know where in Scripture God promised that an Incarnation of Himself would only take place one time. God is not limited by created natures … God is free to incarnate Himself into another separate nature if He so chooses. The only reason He wouldn’t though, is if in so doing He contradicts Himself some way. I’m not quite sure why another Incarnation would be contradicting Himself. I am willing to be persuaded, however.

Thomas Aquinas also says God can have multiple incarnations too. I explained it in this previous post on another thread. Here’s the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5505451&postcount=11

 

[donsnow]

Hi, spauline -

Please accept my apology, I read wrong and missed the simple fact that this is your thread.

If you have any (name removed by moderator)ut on my opinion, it’s welcome.

 

[donsnow]

I understand why you would do this. However, I do not think these things are opposed. I think it’s a false dichotomy that has been instilled in us by certain/particular sci-fi literature (and shows). C.S. Lewis evidently didn’t think they were opposed intrinsically. Just thought I’d mention that. However, I suppose if you were really anti-Catholic sci-fi stuff, then I understand.

No, I’m neither anti-Catholic nor anti-science fiction. I’m very definitely pro-Cathlic and CCC but just not into scifi, like I once was. Still enjoy speculative fiction, nowadays and have read most of Michael Crichton’s stuff.

Interesting theory. You may have a point here. Here are my (possible) objections:

• Do you really think the devil is only the prince of this earth? Is this a safe inference from Scripture? If so, then it seems to be that Satan would not have power over astronauts currently in orbit. No? It is quite possible that the devil has power over everything in the universe (provided God allows him). I think, unfortunately, that is probably the case.

Yes, at this time I think Satan is confined to our planet.
I think that’s a safe inference. Both OT and NT have Satan on this planet, with no mention of other planets; which does not preclude the Devil from other planets. What I think does preclude Satan and his demons from other planets is that neither he nor his demons have omnipresence. Always in scripture, we see Satan and his demons as restricted in bodily presence. It’s his lack of omnipresence, imho, which restricts him to our planet.
Since I think this is so, then it follows that he has no power over astronauts in orbit, nor on the moon, etc.
I think God will not allow Satan nor his demons enough power to contest Him off this world. Why do you think God would allow that?

• Even if the devil was not involved in an alien species, this does not make it impossible for that species to fall. The devil didn’t need a tempter to make himself fall.

True. Although I still like to think of innocents in space, I allow as we’re both working with our respective assumptions, in this discussion.

• There could be another host of devils assigned to alien worlds anyway, and if aliens exist, this is probably the case. (although conceivably, Satan could rule over them all).

Why would that be the case?

I dispute this. But I’m willing to be proven wrong. I don’t know where in Scripture God promised that an Incarnation of Himself would only take place one time. God is not limited by created natures … God is free to incarnate Himself into another separate nature if He so chooses. The only reason He wouldn’t though, is if in so doing He contradicts Himself some way. I’m not quite sure why another Incarnation would be contradicting Himself. I am willing to be persuaded, however.

Well, as I remember, both OT and NT present God as not confusing His people. And, it seems to me, that Jesus Christ and also another in the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, would be confusing. So, that’s why I think it won’t happen.

Thomas Aquinas also says God can have multiple incarnations too. I explained it in this previous post on another thread. Here’s the link:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5505451&postcount=11

I went to your link. Yes, you’re right, St. Augustine did write that. However, I interpret that in the context that although God can do anything, that he won’t do anything that changes His immutable character; and, I think that the existing three persons of the Holy Trinity encompasses the immutable character of God, and He won’t do anything to change that. That’s where I am on that.

 

[spauline]

Hi, spauline -

Please accept my apology, I read wrong and missed the simple fact that this is your thread.

If you have any (name removed by moderator)ut on my opinion, it’s welcome.

That is OK, don. Accidents happen, I know I cause many!

I am a little busy at the moment, so I will have to get back later. Thnx for responding, and I’ll try to get back in time.

scott

 

[Areopagite]

No, I’m neither anti-Catholic nor anti-science fiction. I’m very definitely pro-Cathlic and CCC but just not into scifi, like I once was. Still enjoy speculative fiction, nowadays and have read most of Michael Crichton’s stuff.

I gotcha. Good man.

Yes, at this time I think Satan is confined to our planet.
I think that’s a safe inference. Both OT and NT have Satan on this planet, with no mention of other planets; which does not preclude the Devil from other planets. What I think does preclude Satan and his demons from other planets is that neither he nor his demons have omnipresence. Always in scripture, we see Satan and his demons as restricted in bodily presence. It’s his lack of omnipresence, imho, which restricts him to our planet.

I agree that demons do not have omnipresence, but (Aquinas, I think, says that) demons can go anywhere they want at the speed of thought … this is not omnipresence, but … omnidestination (yeah, I just made that word up) … that is, they aren’t everywhere all at once, but can go anywhere (one destination at a time). Unless of course, God vetoes their attempts. I’m open to correction on this because my angelology is a little weaker than I care to admit. (and, please, no references to angels and heads of pins)

Also, it’s not a very safe inference in my view to suppose Satan isn’t on other planets just because the OT and NT didn’t mention he was on other planets. The Bible doesn’t mention a lot of things … and that doesn’t mean the omitted affirmative propositions are false.

Since I think this is so, then it follows that he has no power over astronauts in orbit, nor on the moon, etc.

I think this is quite crazy idea, but I won’t say you’re wrong. Would you say the same thing about people in airplanes? What constitutes “on this planet?” What about people on very tall buildings? What about people in mid-air (either in a jump or falling)? Are we only susceptible to demonic influence if our feet touch the ground?

I think God will not allow Satan nor his demons enough power to contest Him off this world. Why do you think God would allow that?

You could ask why does God allow the demons to contest Him in this world. If it makes sense that God allows demons to work on earth, why not elsewhere?

Why would that be the case?

From what exorcists have said and former occult practitioners who talked to demons using mediums and whatnot, certain demons have been assigned to certain people/places/things. And not all the demons know what other demons know. Different cities, countries, continents have different demons at work there. It would make a lot of sense that there would be a vastly different set of demons at work on another planet.

On the other hand, Aquinas and many other theologians say that Satan is the ruler over all the demons. This is because Satan has the highest angelic nature and naturally rules all the fallen angels below him. Does that kind of make sense? I suppose I may need to go into detail on this.

Well, as I remember, both OT and NT present God as not confusing His people. And, it seems to me, that Jesus Christ and also another in the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, would be confusing. So, that’s why I think it won’t happen.

Depends what you mean by “Confusing.” It’s kind of subjective. And there’s plenty of times in the Gospel that people don’t know what Jesus is talking about (esp. with the parables). And then there is Job … he was pretty confused about God for awhile. Obviously, if we were perfect, God wouldn’t be very confusing. But since we aren’t, naturally God becomes confusing to us.

Personally, I don’t find multiple Incarnations of God confusing. It was at first, but then I worked out the logic, and there’s wasn’t any problem in my mind anymore.

I went to your link. Yes, you’re right, St. Augustine did write that. However, I interpret that in the context that although God can do anything, that he won’t do anything that changes His immutable character; and, I think that the existing three persons of the Holy Trinity encompasses the immutable character of God, and He won’t do anything to change that. That’s where I am on that.

Not only will God never change His immutable character, but God can never do that. But multiple incarnations does not violate His immutability, just like Christ’s incarnation didn’t violate it. The divine nature stays the same: but it’s human nature that is “grafted onto it” that is subject to change. Obviously, it’s kind of a mystery, but that made a lot of sense to me when I first heard that.

So, what I’m saying is that if God can become incarnate once, there is no reason why He can’t become incarnate again as many times as He wants.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Yep. I remember that. The answer was for the Q’s to start having babies. (I’m not even joking … very pro-life strangely enough).

“…start having babies…”

When I read that, the scene where President Roslin tells Commander Adama those very words in the Battlestar Galactica miniseries from a few years back popped into my head. While BSG was a VERY good show from a sci-fi (I refuse to write it the way the channel formerly known as SciFi now writes it) perspective, albeit, it did have some disturbing messages, but that’s for another thread. At the very least, I have a favorite word that I use from time to time that comes from BSG (actually, it’s from the original BSG that they brought into the newer version) and a preference for Kara “Starbuck” Thrace :blushing:as opposed to Dirk Benedict’s version of Starbuck.

Sorry for the sidebar…back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[donsnow]

I gotcha. Good man.

Yes, Mr. Crichton’s an excellent writer.

I agree that demons do not have omnipresence, but (Aquinas, I think, says that) demons can go anywhere they want at the speed of thought … this is not omnipresence, but … omnidestination (yeah, I just made that word up) … that is, they aren’t everywhere all at once, but can go anywhere (one destination at a time). Unless of course, God vetoes their attempts. I’m open to correction on this because my angelology is a little weaker than I care to admit. (and, please, no references to angels and heads of pins)

I understand your angelology. Well, they still go one place at a time, just faster than we do. I read a medical quip on the speed of thought, one time. It’s just faster than the speed of sound, if I remember correctly. I don’t remember what magazine. So, it’s not like they travel at the speed of light, or anything. With that velocity in mind, I submit they nor Satan is not going to get very far from Earth, much less to another solar system, galaxy, cluster of galaxies nor supercluster of same. I submit that their supernatural bodies are subject to [supernatural] laws.
So, without whistling a tune for angels on the heads of pins to dance to, I think I have pointed out a common sense objection to Satan and his fallen angels on other planets.

Also, it’s not a very safe inference in my view to suppose Satan isn’t on other planets just because the OT and NT didn’t mention he was on other planets. The Bible doesn’t mention a lot of things … and that doesn’t mean the omitted affirmative propositions are false.

You’re right, just like US of A Constitution doesn’t forbid a lot of things. Understood.

I think this is quite crazy idea, but I won’t say you’re wrong. Would you say the same thing about people in airplanes? What constitutes “on this planet?” What about people on very tall buildings? What about people in mid-air (either in a jump or falling)? Are we only susceptible to demonic influence if our feet touch the ground?

Maybe my common sense observation about speed of thought around speed of sound limiting Satan and his angels to our planet isn’t so crazy?
As far as your other questions in this paragraph. Every time I’ve flown on a passenger plane at altitude, I’ve felt an invisible weight drop away from me and a sense of peace, instead. So, I don’t know about that, because Satan’s also called the prince of the air.
On this planet includes…Ummm…now that’s a pertinent question. Earth’s gravity well? It’s magnetosphere? These extend for tens of thousands of miles. How about, on this planet means within its atmospheric envelope? That’s over 100mi up. Is that OK?
Any tall building, regardless of height, connects people on it to the ground.
Falling or jumping happens in the atmosphere.
I don’t know, by the above definitions, we could be, if not protected, influenced by demons or Satan while in the air.

You could ask why does God allow the demons to contest Him in this world. If it makes sense that God allows demons to work on earth, why not elsewhere?

As it is written, “Even the wicked are appointed for the Day of the Lord”. (Proverbs, I think)
Wicked, I think, includes people and demons and Satan. God allows these things so we can freely choose between good and evil. (You were waiting for that, weren’t you?)

But, not on other planets, because our Universal God and His universal heaven was where Satan and his third of the angelic hosts fell from, onto this planet. Here, I think, the Talmud and even esoteric Jewish and Christian writings would have place to mention other planets. The few Talmud and Kabalistic writings, nor the book of Enoch, which I have read, mention nothing about the fallen third of the hosts of Heaven being spread out through different planets. This is no evidence they didn’t, but you still have no documentation saying they did.

From what exorcists have said and former occult practitioners who talked to demons using mediums and whatnot, certain demons have been assigned to certain people/places/things. And not all the demons know what other demons know. Different cities, countries, continents have different demons at work there. It would make a lot of sense that there would be a vastly different set of demons at work on another planet.

Well, Areopagite, I do accept anecdotal evidence. And, although your extropolation is reasonable, I still disagree, because of the velocity limit I mentioned earlier.

Continued next post.

 

[donsnow]

Conclusion to Post # 16

On the other hand, Aquinas and many other theologians say that Satan is the ruler over all the demons. This is because Satan has the highest angelic nature and naturally rules all the fallen angels below him. Does that kind of make sense? I suppose I may need to go into detail on this.

Yes, it makes sense. But, I still don’t agree to your proposition.

Depends what you mean by “Confusing.” It’s kind of subjective. And there’s plenty of times in the Gospel that people don’t know what Jesus is talking about (esp. with the parables). And then there is Job … he was pretty confused about God for awhile. Obviously, if we were perfect, God wouldn’t be very confusing. But since we aren’t, naturally God becomes confusing to us.

Even my little military mind is not confused, when I can see the Holy Trinity in the first three verses of the first chapter of the first book of our Holy Bible.

Gen 1, 1 “In the beginning, God [the Father] created the heavens and the earth, and the 2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind [symbol for the Spirit] swept over the waters.
3 Then God said, ‘let there be light.’
And there was light.”

I can see, where when God said, he made a word, and it was the Word; and it was ‘…let there be light.’ And that was the Light. And that Word and Light is what was incarnated in the infant Jesus, Immanuel [God with us]. That Word/Light was a Holy Thing, and that Holy Thing was incarnated into the infant in the virgin Mary’s womb. That Word/Light is the second Person of the Holy Trinity, imho.

Now, just how many creations are talking about, that there should be more than one such Being? There can only be one per creation. The Holy Trinity remains unchanging and unchangeable, from ‘…the beginning,…’. Can you see what I mean?

Personally, I don’t find multiple Incarnations of God confusing. It was at first, but then I worked out the logic, and there’s wasn’t any problem in my mind anymore.

Here, I can only submit my own philosophical observation, that logic unleashed from faith and reason can, and does, go astray. I can’t agree with logic that contradicts faith and reason. And, I think what I see in Gen 1, 1-3 is faith and reason.

Not only will God never change His immutable character, but God can never do that. But multiple incarnations does not violate His immutability, just like Christ’s incarnation didn’t violate it. The divine nature stays the same: but it’s human nature that is “grafted onto it” that is subject to change. Obviously, it’s kind of a mystery, but that made a lot of sense to me when I first heard that.

Well, there’s a context in which I can accept multiple incarnations. That context is called a Theophany. Scholars agree that God appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai as a Theophany. They also agree that Jesus Christ appeared to Joshua outside the walls of Jericho, as a Theophany As when, in our Catholic Bible, the text in Daniel’s description of the three Jewish boys in the fiery furnace, read that one was seen with them in the fires, like unto the Son of Man. So, that was another Theophany of Jesus Christ. I can also accept the Tradition, that a godly person on Earth could be a Theophany of either God the Father or of the one God the Son. So that when we give alms to a godly person, we could be giving to God the Father or God the Son. I accept divine incarnations in those contexts.

So, what I’m saying is that if God can become incarnate once, there is no reason why He can’t become incarnate again as many times as He wants.

But, because of the supernature of the Word/Light from the beginning, there can only be one per Creation, because he was formed at the beginning, and nothing is made without him.
There’s only the one, and because of the circumstances at his being formed, there can be only one. It’s done. And now, we are to be like him. We are the other persons of Christ, each of us. In that context, I accept more than one Son of God. But, we are not persons of the Holy Trinity, but of the adoption.

That’s my veiwpoint, and you have not shown me anything, to change it .

 

[Areopagite]

I understand your angelology. Well, they still go one place at a time, just faster than we do. I read a medical quip on the speed of thought, one time. It’s just faster than the speed of sound, if I remember correctly. I don’t remember what magazine. So, it’s not like they travel at the speed of light, or anything. With that velocity in mind, I submit they nor Satan is not going to get very far from Earth, much less to another solar system, galaxy, cluster of galaxies nor supercluster of same. I submit that their supernatural bodies are subject to [supernatural] laws.

Traveling at the the “speed of thought” (as defined by the Scholastics … unless someone can correct me) involves going to any location in the universe as fast as you can think of being there. It’s more like teleportation, and transportation. I believe the common understanding in Catholicism is that angels are able to travel in this fashion. Because, of course, intrinsically, they are immaterial beings, and hence not subject to natural laws. They are thus not subject to the limitations of physical speed. They can enter and exit the material universe wherever they want. Unless, of course, they are bound by some kind of supernatural laws … and that could be anything. But I don’t know if there’s enough evidence anywhere to suggest there are supernatural laws that subject them to speed of light and whatnot. Unless some divine revelation indicates otherwise, it makes sense to assume that angels can go anywhere instantly.

But, not on other planets, because our Universal God and His universal heaven was where Satan and his third of the angelic hosts fell from, onto this planet.

Perhaps this “falling from heaven” is more than a metaphor, as you suggest. On the other hand, if taken more lieralistically, doesn’t it suggest that outer space is “heaven” in the supernatural sense?

But, because of the supernature of the Word/Light from the beginning, there can only be one per Creation, because he was formed at the beginning, and nothing is made without him. There’s only the one, and because of the circumstances at his being formed, there can be only one. It’s done. And now, we are to be like him. We are the other persons of Christ, each of us. In that context, I accept more than one Son of God. But, we are not persons of the Holy Trinity, but of the adoption.

What Thomas Aquinas was saying is that the Word (i.e. God the Son) or any of the other two divine persons could become incarnate as many times as they want. He’s not saying there could be two or three Words/Light, but rather two or three (or whatever) incarnations of the Word. Jesus Christ is one incarnation of the Word. But there could be other incarnations of the Word which would not be Jesus. Jesus is: the Word + the particular human nature provided by Mary. An alien savior could paradoxically be the same divine person that Jesus is, but that alien savior would not be Jesus. Does that make sense?

 

[DaveBj]

I’m late into this discussion, so apologies for that. But I was chatting with someone one time about Satan having been “cast down to the earth” and the ambiguity about whether that means the physical planet Earth or out of the heavenly “dimension” into the physical created universe. I commented (somewhat tongue in cheek) that if it meant the planet Earth, we humans could escape him by moving to Mars. My interlocutor said (also somewhat tongue in cheek) that no, we’d take him with us

Back to the OP’s queries, I’m four chapters from finishing a novel where an older, advanced, unfallen race is allowed by the Creator to discover fallen, sinful humanity.

DaveBj

 

[donsnow]

Traveling at the the “speed of thought” (as defined by the Scholastics … unless someone can correct me) involves going to any location in the universe as fast as you can think of being there. It’s more like teleportation, and transportation. I believe the common understanding in Catholicism is that angels are able to travel in this fashion. Because, of course, intrinsically, they are immaterial beings, and hence not subject to natural laws. They are thus not subject to the limitations of physical speed. They can enter and exit the material universe wherever they want. Unless, of course, they are bound by some kind of supernatural laws … and that could be anything. But I don’t know if there’s enough evidence anywhere to suggest there are supernatural laws that subject them to speed of light and whatnot. Unless some divine revelation indicates otherwise, it makes sense to assume that angels can go anywhere instantly.

Ok, when you insert ‘teleportation’ for ‘speed of thought’, in my mind that’s a whole different ball of wax. And, you get no further argument from me . Yes, I can conceive that angels can teleport from their dimension to our physical reality.

Perhaps this “falling from heaven” is more than a metaphor, as you suggest. On the other hand, if taken more lieralistically, doesn’t it suggest that outer space is “heaven” in the supernatural sense?

Well, literally speaking, yes, that would make ‘outer space’ out as ‘heaven’. But, we both know it’s not. Don’t we? What heaven is now, I can only conceive of as another dimension, thanks to my deceased Godmother, God rest her. Of course, I think the OT Biblical rendition of ‘heaven’ included our skies as well as above our skies. And, then the NT concept of heaven presents the New Jerusalem, yet to come.
I’m so glad, that the ‘New Jerusalem’ is off in some [dimensional?] wing (or a time yet to come), unreachable by modern terrorists. Heh heh. I just love God’s plan.

What Thomas Aquinas was saying is that the Word (i.e. God the Son) or any of the other two divine persons could become incarnate as many times as they want. He’s not saying there could be two or three Words/Light, but rather two or three (or whatever) incarnations of the Word. Jesus Christ is one incarnation of the Word. But there could be other incarnations of the Word which would not be Jesus. Jesus is: the Word + the particular human nature provided by Mary. An alien savior could paradoxically be the same divine person that Jesus is, but that alien savior would not be Jesus. Does that make sense?

Here, we disagree, because I view the other incarnations of either the Heavenly Father or God the Son of the Holy Trinity as I have previously described. And, of course, with that bias, would say that’s what St. Augustine referring to. I would like to agree to disagree with you, here, because of the ‘could be’ nature of both my and your interpretations of this. If we agree to disagree, we each keep our stand and don’t get off into going 'round and 'round over and over again . So, would you do that, with me? Instead of doing the latter?