Are all other worlds deprived of God?

[tonyrey]

See post #218.

Your shout. (Cold and not Guinness!)

Not of this world!

I don’t think human characteristics and alien characteristics are necessarily contradictory.
It is possible we have some in common and not all ours (or theirs) need be in God’s image. The Creator is certainly not restricted by our ideas of what He can or cannot create!

 

[StAnastasia]

I don’t think human characteristics and alien characteristics are necessarily contradictory. It is possible we have some in common and not all ours (or theirs) need be in God’s image. The Creator is certainly not restricted by our ideas of what He can or cannot create!

Tony, in response to your post #236, the requirement that God be physically like us – i.e., an anthropomorphic God – would seem to be close to idolatry.

In response to this post, you are right that the Creator is not restricted by the imagination of creatures. Christ incarnate on other planets need not have five fingers, two legs, or human DNA.

What must the Incarnate Christ be like, then? Arguably what would be central to the Christ Incarnate throughout the universe would be what we see to be essential to the Imago Dei on Earth. That would include (but not be restricted to) rationality, moral awareness, spiritual consciousness, etc.

If the rational, morally aware and spiritually conscious species that developed from the biosphere on another planet were reptilian or amphibian or avian in origin, The Christ would become incarnate in a form recognisable to the persons on that planet.

StAnastasia

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Genesis

[14] And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: [15] To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done.

The stars and other heavenly bodies were made for our benefit. Like the moon they are lifeless.

As far as I can tell no one can prove that the earth isn’t the center of the universe.

 

[grannymh]

Of course, we have only our own single instance to judge by, but on Earth it took 3.5 billion years for rational, morally aware, and spiritually responsive sensitive life to develop.

Please note that I accept your statement as you wrote it. It is not my intention to twist any words or to imply any implications.

And it is true that I am in awe of 3.5 billion years for rational, morally aware, and spiritually responsive sensitive life to develop. Nonetheless, I respectfully propose this additional concept to think about.

On the planet that is not deprived of God, it only takes an instant for God to directly create the spiritual soul as an essential part of human nature.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

Please note that I accept your statement as you wrote it. It is not my intention to twist any words or to imply any implications.

And it is true that I am in awe of 3.5 billion years for rational, morally aware, and spiritually responsive sensitive life to develop. Nonetheless, I respectfully propose this additional concept to think about.

On the planet that is not deprived of God, it only takes an instant for God to directly create the spiritual soul as an essential part of human nature.

Are you assuming that man evolved instead of being created?

 

[StAnastasia]

The stars and other heavenly bodies were made for our benefit. Like the moon they are lifeless.

That’s an interesting assumption. What is your information leading you to this conclusion? You could contact NASA and advise them to shut down operations, but I suspect your view will not dissuade NASA from exploring the solar system for the possibility of life having once existed on Mars, or perhaps existing even now under the icy crust of Europa.

As far as I can tell no one can prove that the earth isn’t the center of the universe.

 

[grannymh]

Are you assuming that man evolved instead of being created?

Thank you for your question regarding clarification.

The original statement which I accepted as it is written is: “Of course, we have only our own single instance to judge by, but on Earth it took 3.5 billion years for rational, morally aware, and spiritually responsive sensitive life to develop.” from post 229.

This very broad statement could possibly apply to parts of the human physical anatomy such as the brain with its sensitivity. This would be proper in the physical/material domain of natural science. .

Since I did not comment on the poster’s reasoning, I considered it proper to add the spiritual concept which is the Catholic belief regarding the fully-complete human nature. This is in reference to the fact that human nature, itself, is an unique unification of both the material and spiritual worlds.

Out of respect for the ban on evolution discussion, I will omit comments about my personal opinion of the respective terminology in post 229. As for myself, since the Catholic Church does not have a doctrine on the exact recipe which God used to bring about the first human person, I will simply point to the doctrine that God directly creates the spiritual soul.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[JDaniel]

StAnastasia:

Period?

Is that why you think Genesis, and perhaps the entire Old Testament, is mythical?

God bless,
jd

StAnastasia:

Are these your words?

“Inocente, you are correct. DNA was unknown to the writer of the Genesis creation myth, and it is incoherent to argue that only a terrestrial creature could be created in the image of God.”
I don’t know but that statement seems to me to be saying that Genesis, at the very least, is “mythical.” Did you mean something else? Or, did I take it wrongly?

God bless,
jd

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

That’s an interesting assumption. What is your information leading you to this conclusion? You could contact NASA and advise them to shut down operations, but I suspect your view will not dissuade NASA from exploring the solar system for the possibility of life having once existed on Mars, or perhaps existing even now under the icy crust of Europa.

 

[John21652]

If I thought NASA would take my advice I’d give them a call. If God created man on another planet and that Adam didn’t sin I don’t think God would let us corrupt them. They’re wasting a lot of money and it comes out of my paycheck.

Has anyone proved the earth isn’t the center. It’s impossible to prove that so I’ll go on believing God made the stars for us just as Genesis says.

If that other Adam didn’t sin and everything is still perfect in that other ‘Garden of Eden’, and Adam and Eve still don’t even bother with fig leaves, why would God still bother with us? After all, all we do is cause Him untold pain and hurt and, shame of shames, we even crucified His only Son, who was sent down to whip us into line. If God were rational, which I presume to be true, then He’d simply say this free will stuff sucks and put us down as an experiment gone wrong and concentrate all His energies on the other mob!

 

[StAnastasia]

StAnastasia: Are these your words?

Yes.

I don’t know but that statement seems to me to be saying that Genesis, at the very least, is “mythical.” Did you mean something else? Or, did I take it wrongly?

 

[StAnastasia]

If I thought NASA would take my advice I’d give them a call. If God created man on another planet and that Adam didn’t sin I don’t think God would let us corrupt them. They’re wasting a lot of money and it comes out of my paycheck.

Call them and make your opinion known.

Has anyone proved the earth isn’t the center. It’s impossible to prove that so I’ll go on believing God made the stars for us just as Genesis says.

It’s a free country!

 

[grannymh]

Genesis has a long redactional history. It includes elements of cosmogonic myth interpreted theologically, Hebrew legend, and prophetic themes. I defer to the Catholic biblical association in my interpretation, as I am an historical theologian, not a biblical scholar.

I am not an historical theologian nor a biblical scholar; however, may I respectfully add that the Catholic Church has the right to define and defend Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis.

I do recognize that various chapters of Genesis have a redactional history. According to the Saint Joseph Edition, The New American Bible, page 3, the Book of Genesis is a “complex work, not to be attributed to a single original author. Several sources, or literary tradition, that the final redactor used in his composition are discernible.”

Since there is, apparently, a final redactor, it becomes the province of the Catholic Church to determine Divine Revelation as carefully preserved by this redactor. This is no easy task. Therefore, the Catholic Church relies on the Holy Spirit as predicted by Jesus Christ in the Gospel of John, Chapter 14.

In this current age of many cultures and many kinds of historical theologies, we can rely on the Catholic Church to retain and maintain its Deposit of Faith.

 

[grannymh]

Of course, we have only our own single instance to judge by, but on Earth it took 3.5 billion years for rational, morally aware, and spiritually responsive sensitive life to develop.

The context for this quote is post 229. I do marvel at the information contained in it.

Nonetheless, I wonder about post 229’s statement “Of course, we have only our own single instance to judge by, but on Earth it took 3.5 billion years for rational, morally aware, and spiritually responsive sensitive life to develop.” Since our planet has a multitude of life forms, I would appreciate knowing what kind or what kinds of life are being referred to.

Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know but that statement seems to me to be saying that Genesis, at the very least, is “mythical.” Did you mean something else? Or, did I take it wrongly?

God bless,
jd

Your questions have been adequately answered in post 249. In fact, this post did speak the truth in regard to the first three chapters of Genesis. In my humble opinion, there is no lie in these sentences: “Genesis has a long redactional history. It includes elements of cosmogonic myth interpreted theologically, Hebrew legend, and prophetic themes.”

On the other hand, when it comes to Divine Revelation as taught by the Catholic Church, it is beneficial to check the* Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition*.

CCC **289 **
"Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation."

Emphasis mine.

In the Book of Genesis, first three chapters, individual elements, both literal and figurative, serve one goal and that is to** express in solemn language the truths of the creation of our world which is not deprived of God.**

When comparing possible inhabitants of worlds deprived of God, one first needs a sound basis for describing the humans of this planet. This basis consists of the solid Catholic doctrines concerning the unity of the human race because all humanity descended from Adam and Eve who are the sole founders of the human species.

 

[tonyrey]

*I don’t think human characteristics and alien characteristics are necessarily contradictory. It is possible we have some in common and not all ours (or theirs) need be in God’s image. The Creator is certainly not restricted by our ideas of what He can or cannot create! *

I agree.

In response to this post, you are right that the Creator is not restricted by the imagination of creatures. Christ incarnate on other planets need not have five fingers, two legs, or human DNA.

What must the Incarnate Christ be like, then? Arguably what would be central to the Christ Incarnate throughout the universe would be what we see to be essential to the Imago Dei on Earth. That would include (but not be restricted to) rationality, moral awareness, spiritual consciousness, etc.

If the rational, morally aware and spiritually conscious species that developed from the biosphere on another planet were reptilian or amphibian or avian in origin, The Christ would become incarnate in a form recognisable to the persons on that planet.

Irrefutable! (Again…

Tony, in response to your post #236, the requirement that God be physically like us – i.e., an anthropomorphic God – would seem to be close to idolatry.

In response to this post, you are right that the Creator is not restricted by the imagination of creatures. Christ incarnate on other planets need not have five fingers, two legs, or human DNA.

What must the Incarnate Christ be like, then? Arguably what would be central to the Christ Incarnate throughout the universe would be what we see to be essential to the Imago Dei on Earth. That would include (but not be restricted to) rationality, moral awareness, spiritual consciousness, etc.

If the rational, morally aware and spiritually conscious species that developed from the biosphere on another planet were reptilian or amphibian or avian in origin, The Christ would become incarnate in a form recognisable to the persons on that planet.

StAnastasia

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

=tonyrey;8793807]I agree.

Irrefutable! (Again…

Tony, in response to your post #236, the requirement that God be physically like us – i.e., an anthropomorphic God – would seem to be close to idolatry.

Are you saying that Jesus doesn’t look like the rest of humanity?

In response to this post, you are right that the Creator is not restricted by the imagination of creatures. Christ incarnate on other planets need not have five fingers, two legs, or human DNA.

God does not change.

If the rational, morally aware and spiritually conscious species that developed from the biosphere on another planet were reptilian or amphibian or avian in origin, The Christ would become incarnate in a form recognisable to the persons on that planet.

StAnastasia

**Do you really think God changes? God is already everywhere and there isn’t a single grain of dust or molecule of gas anywhere in the universe that God isn’t aware of.
**

 

[grannymh]

=tonyrey;8793807]I agree.

Irrefutable! (Again…

Pardon my dumb question. But have you and others seriously considered what it would take for X species, of a reptilian or amphibian or avian, for example, in origin, on another planet, to become rational, morally aware, and spiritually conscious?

Maybe this is a serious question.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you saying that Jesus doesn’t look like the rest of humanity?

His divine nature does not have any physical appearances but his human nature obviously has similar characteristics.

 

[StAnastasia]

Are you saying that Jesus doesn’t look like the rest of humanity?

No

God does not change.

True.

Do you really think God changes?

No.

God is already everywhere and there isn’t a single grain of dust or molecule of gas anywhere in the universe that God isn’t aware of.

True.