Are all other worlds deprived of God?

[AnglicanForMary]

I have been thinking lately and pondering this one question:

If God sent his one and only son to earth to die for the sins of man, what would happen to life on other planets?

I believe in this vast universe that there is probably another planet that can and has sustained intelligent life. How could they be aware of God’s presence when Jesus was sent to earth? Are all the other galaxies in the universe forsaken by God? Is it only humans here on earth that are his chosen race or did he send a son to them as well?

Hello Joshua (and other forum members)!

I don’t think there is just one acceptable answer, except to say that of the above, God Alone knows, and it is into His capable, merciful, loving and just hands that we should commend any potential non-terrestial, rational, corporeal*, civilization, made in the Image and Likeness of God.

However, with that said, I would like to add some other observations. The most immediate one to sprint to mind is that such a question has slight to no actual practical relevance to those of us on Earth, since, barring a radical transformation of our knowledge of the laws of physics we can never know for certainty whether "aliens’ do in fact exist. Unless, the (non)existence of aliens is seized on by Skeptics, Atheists and the ilk, as a reason to dispute the existence of God.

The real problem, in my mind, would be the matter of non-terrestial civilizations that arose and died before the Lord became incarnate, how would they have heard the message of repentance and turned to the Lord, if they could. I think though, that this would fall under the same category as what about human civilizations and peoples that lived before the Incarnation, or who lived and died in lands un-reached by the Gospel. The answer is, we must have faith that God, in His mercy, has a plan that covers them.

*I add “corporeal” because, Angels are also rational, created beings who (may) be made in the Image and/or Likeness of God, and yet, if my memory serves following (Fr. Faber and S. John Damascus,) the Angels who fell before the creation of the world are not allowed to repent…it is mankind, who is body and soul and spirit who is allowed to repent. So, the idealistic fantasies of Star Trek, et.al that posit non-coporeal life-forms would be in the same boat, as might a truly artificial intelligence developed by man (if such a thing were possible)

 

[LayingHands]

I’ve read several versions of the Bhagavad-Gita, and, although I do not read Sanskrit, I find the “As it is” version to be seriously wanting, both in comparison to other versions, and from the advice of a Hindu, “Whichever versions you get, don’t get Wendy Doniger’s Rig Veda or the Hare Krishna Bhagavad Gita”). I think Juan Mascaro’s translation is the best, from what I know and from the advice of a Hindu who does. I’ve never read a single version cover-to-cover more than once (just as I have never read a single translation of Homer more than once, although I’ve read several translations, and struggled through the original) as I have with the Bible, although I have read several versions of each cover-to-cover multiple times.

In any case, although there may be truth of a sort, reflected in a mirror, darkly, it is not the same message. A passage here or a passage there in the Bible and in the Gita may be compatible, or similar: taken on the whole, the Gita is completely incompatible with the Gospel, and the messages are irreconcilable.

We do not return to God to become one with God, or one with the universe, or one with the Universal Soul, through our own learning and accomplishment or effort: we return to God as we were before the fall, glorified and immortal, although retaining the ego/self, as the Angels are in Heaven, through the unearned and infinite grace and merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the God-Man born of a Virgin, who sacrificed himself on the cross to redeem us from our sins.

That’s worse mistranslation than the worst of the worst Bibles by an order of magnitude. It’s not really a translation, as an extended commentary from the Krishna perspective or tradition.

Of course we return to GOD…it is the Promise as stated in both the New Testament and the Bhagavad-gita AS IT IS…and the other translations you speak of, are moreso confusing, in what I find is a chasing the tail english…which goes round and round into more misunderstandings and more confusion…Hindus are a people and there are many castes with many philosophies as their own interpretations…

Our Lord Jesus Christ glorified and worshipped His Father GOD throughout the New Testament…question; What is the Greatest Commandment? Jesus said “Love your Lord, your GOD, with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind, This is the first and greatest commandment”

GOD, in the BG says “Always think of Me, Become My devotee, Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. The result is that you will come to Me without fail, I promise you this because you are My very dear friend. Engage your mind always thinking of Me, engage your body in My service and surrender unto Me. Completely absorbed in Me, surely will you come to Me.”

Simple, really…and the same…

 

[StAnastasia]

1. Mayber we are to bring them the news and salvation of Christ.

News of the gospel would reach some of them posthumously. If only a tiny fraction of stars have potentially life-bearing planets, there may be hundreds of millions of civilization out there. They would start and end at different times, so many of them may already be extinct for millions or hundreds of mi8llinos of years. On the other hand, if God is God, there is no reason at all why God could not become incarnate to many different species at different times.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Well, how many other Queens of Heaven can there be?

 

[StAnastasia]

Well, how many other Queens of Heaven can there be?

Unknown.

 

[Whadyamean]

The definition of Christianity is that it is the Truth and the Way.

and

In the strict sense, it is a belief that Christianity corresponds with actual truth,

The second of these is actually and functionally accurate. As a Catholic, that is how I see it, and am sure, since the religion claims to be a “faith” even if it believes and names itself to be “The Faith,” it is still a belief, whatever authentications are believed to lend verification to the church’s contentions.

So, no, Christianity is not a belief, as you lay it out, with the implication that other beliefs are valid. It is a belief in the sense that one can choose to believe either truth or falsehood.

I invite you to find some source material that will enable you to differentiate between “valid” and “true.”

The crux of the situation being, that Christianity, by any definition, can not be reconciled with contradictory beliefs,

This is what we would call a truism.

… that is, beliefs in untruth. Christianity is not postmodern: heresy did not precede orthodoxy. Beliefs in “untruth” being defined by what you believe to be truth.

I sincerely contend that you will be in a far happier position if you simply admit your actual situation and move from there. That is not that you should not be a Catholic. For you that is quite clearly very wonderful! But that does not endow you or your faith to transcend ordinary logic. As it stands, such muddiness is what is depriving THIS world of a more experiential understanding of God, no?

 

[Khalid]

This world seems to be veritably full of experiential knowledge of “god”, in every religion there is. What’s needed is a rational knowledge of God, not more and ever-unverifiable “experience”. From Pentecostals to Buddhists to Mormons, all claim experiential knowledge of the transcendental (speaking in tongues, bodhi, burning in the bosom): this translates into conflicting truth-claims, but no method of assortment or judging-between. Experience is true for me, in some sense, but it is not True.

Natural knowledge, within a realist and essentialist metaphysical framework, does provide the knowledge of God in an objective sense, or natural theology, which is equally true for all human beings: it is True. This is the knowledge that is needed, and is draining away in to the sinks of materialism and positivism. Not existentialist pap.

In my above post, I validly conflated (pun intended) validity and truth: as I am in the philosophy forum, I should be more careful with my verbiage: in any case, in the realm of religious epistemology, it holds true that untrue beliefs are invalid, and invalid beliefs are untrue. I also laid out the fundamental claim of Christian truth as a tautology, as it seemed you had failed to grasp it, or had never considered it.

Beliefs in “untruth” being defined by what you believe to be truth.

No, “untruth” and “truth” are based on correspondence to being, that is, the instantiated form. What I choose to believe has no bearing on the truth-value of my belief, or any other. Truth is independent of any and all conceptions of it.

If a Hindu believes his religion to be true, it does not make Christianity false. If Hitler believes in general relativity, it doesn’t mean Einstein is false. If a Christian believes the earth rotates around the sun, it doesn’t make it a false assertion. If a child believes the sky to be blue because blue is his favorite color, it doesn’t make it true: your thesis of “truth”, insofar as I am understanding your presentation, is identical to that forwarded by postmodernism as it is generally understood, either in the “power theory of truth” (for lack of a better or technical term) or in the “multivalent theory of truth” or “dialethism”, leaving room for many validities and many truths, but excluding Validity, and excluding Truth (those, capitalized, are the universals, or the absolutes).

As a Christian, I shall not venture forth into the world and say, “this is my Gospel: it is but one amongst many: would you like to share my dialogue?”

Note: I still find my English stretched when I attempt to write on matters metaphysical. I do not know whether this is a limitation of my English, or whether it is common to all thinkers on these topics in all languages - the latter is evidenced by the large quantity of neologisms present in philosophy in several languages of my knowledge.

 

[Whadyamean]

This world seems to be veritably full of experiential knowledge of “god”, in every religion there is.

It would seem so. Yet there can be no experiential knowledge of God.

What’s needed is a rational knowledge of God, not more and ever-unverifiable “experience”.

While interior experience is externally unverifiable, save o observe that some change has taken place in behavior, perception, ability, etc. God can not yet be known rationally as the lesser cannot contain the greater. There, in the realm of reason, thoughts about God are taken to be “knowledge” in the same sense that interior experiences might be. God is not a thought, nor an object, and most certainly not an object of thought. What happens is that a symbol for the unknown, “God” is mistaken for its unknown referent and reasoned about. Such reasoning does not constitute “proof,” and no matter the appearance of validity, it is not True.

From Pentecostals to Buddhists to Mormons, all claim experiential knowledge of the transcendental (speaking in tongues, bodhi, burning in the bosom): this translates into conflicting truth-claims, but no method of assortment or judging-between. Experience is true for me, in some sense, but it is not True.

This is accurate. While those experiences might actually be of the subtle realms, they are not “proof” of God. this is why the internally experienced mystical realm is subject to interpretation, in nuance and meaning.

Natural knowledge, within a realist and essentialist metaphysical framework, does provide the knowledge of God in an objective sense, or natural theology, which is equally true for all human beings: it is True. This is the knowledge that is needed, and is draining away in to the sinks of materialism and positivism. Not existentialist pap.

What, for you, constitutes this “natural knowledge?” How does it fit into a “realist and essential metaphysical framework?” Again, if it fits into a framework, it is not relative to God, but a concept about God.

In my above post, I validly conflated (pun intended) validity and truth: as I am in the philosophy forum, I should be more careful with my verbiage: in any case, in the realm of religious epistemology, it holds true that untrue beliefs are invalid, and invalid beliefs are untrue. I also laid out the fundamental claim of Christian truth as a tautology, as it seemed you had failed to grasp it, or had never considered it.

Your conflation appears valid to you given your assumptions. However, wrong premise, wrong conclusion. And again the “untrue” beliefs are so by your definition. The same holds for your tautology: it is so by means of accepting a premise. And while I might even agree with you that the form is a vessel for actual meaning, that Meaning is misconstrued by the very devices iterated above.

No, “untruth” and “truth” are based on correspondence to being, that is, the instantiated form. What I choose to believe has no bearing on the truth-value of my belief, or any other. Truth is independent of any and all conceptions of it.

If you treat God as an instantiated form, you aer talking again about a concept, not Being, or its Substantial referent. So yes, Truth is independent of any and all conceptions of it.

continued below:

 

[Whadyamean]

Continued from above:

If a Hindu believes his religion to be true, it does not make Christianity false.

Correct, Christianity is incomplete as taught and while not false, is therefore misleading in some respects on it own qualities, irrespective of what Hindus or any others think of it as a paradigm, though they may perceives some of the incompletion as the Bible itself states.

If Hitler believes in general relativity, it doesn’t mean Einstein is false. If a Christian believes the earth rotates around the sun, it doesn’t make it a false assertion.

Yes, because in each case the relative truth you name is independent of the believer and in those cases is but an item in the contents of their awareness, corresponding to actuality to the degree of their accuracy and comprehension of the idea.

If a child believes the sky to be blue because blue is his favorite color, it doesn’t make it true:

But we do agree that we call the sky blue, generally speaking, on a clear day. But that the child believes it to be so because of it being its favorite color greatly resembles your explication of your take on Truth as applying to the Church.

your thesis of “truth”, insofar as I am understanding your presentation, is identical to that forwarded by postmodernism as it is generally understood, either in the “power theory of truth” (for lack of a better or technical term) or in the “multivalent theory of truth” or “dialethism”, leaving room for many validities and many truths, but excluding Validity, and excluding Truth (those, capitalized, are the universals, or the absolutes).

God, what that poor, belabored, overused and misconstrued word refers to in Reality, THAT is the only Validity and Truth. As for the rest? I have no clue what you are referring to. And clearly you are not understanding my presentation. that i fine. It is only a pointer, anyway. What else can words be?

As a Christian, I shall not venture forth into the world and say, “this is my Gospel: it is but one amongst many: would you like to share my dialogue?”

Why not? you might learn something! You might even learn that Mar 4:33-34 is a rather exciting concept!

Note: I still find my English stretched when I attempt to write on matters metaphysical. I do not know whether this is a limitation of my English, or whether it is common to all thinkers on these topics in all languages - the latter is evidenced by the large quantity of neologisms present in philosophy in several languages of my knowledge.

You have an excellent facility with language(s)! We must stretch and bend, as the Wine is always New and we must be like the willow. English and other languages have the limitation of assuming dualism. Sanskrit may not, I’m not sure. But grammar colors the world we create with our thoughts and impose on Reality. Don’t ever feel limited: your feeling of being stretched is a sign of your ability to grow!

 

[grannymh]

I have been thinking lately and pondering this one question:

If God sent his one and only son to earth to die for the sins of man, what would happen to life on other planets?

I believe in this vast universe that there is probably another planet that can and has sustained intelligent life. How could they be aware of God’s presence when Jesus was sent to earth? Are all the other galaxies in the universe forsaken by God? Is it only humans here on earth that are his chosen race or did he send a son to them as well?

Has anyone else ever thought about this?

God’s blessings,
Joshua

“Has anyone else ever thought about this?” I haven’t until read your OP.

Question – Who created the other worlds deprived of God?

 

[roselily]

They talked about that project; do you read, brothers sisters?
I saw it and read it yesterday-
Science v religion: Professor Christian Weidemann, gave a speech to the symposium, wondering loud if Jesus died for the people of other worlds too
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2044730/Did-Jesus-die-Klingons-Christian-Weidemanns-speech-100-Year-Starship-Symposium.html#ixzz1hQQifsSJ

No! I will remain what I think here!

There is possible beings on other Cosmic Universe , but no human,

that human is only at earth, that we call human, and God produced human on earth, only at this atmosphere.

but it is possible life on other Universe, - that Scientists found Methane CH4 in far away like Saturn’s moon Titan,…also Mars

methane only life can produce, but the lifes in other places in Cosmic Universe not human, and I knew not whether the lifes in there are source of light or not…

 

[StAnastasia]

They talked about that project; do you read, brothers sisters? No! I will remain what I think here!

It’s virtually certain there is no human life elsewhere in the universe, as from a biological perspective Homo sapiens is a unique product of the long and convoluted history of 3.5 billion years of life on earth. However, the terrestrial uniqueness of human life is irrelevant to the question of whether there is rational, morally responsible, and spiritually aware life elsewhere in the universe.

StAnastasia

 

[Whadyamean]

It’s virtually certain there is no human life elsewhere in the universe, as from a biological perspective Homo sapiens is a unique product of the long and convoluted history of 3.5 billion years of life on earth. However, the terrestrial uniqueness of human life is irrelevant to the question of whether there is rational, morally responsible, and spiritually aware life elsewhere in the universe.

StAnastasia

Yep. But did you omit one word that might be a link to a common understanding of spirituality amongst self aware beings?

 

[Mortification]

Even if there were other beings on other planets and worlds (which I personally don’t believe there are), they wouldn’t be deprived of God.

Look at the story of Jonah. All the way in the belly of that whale, and still could not hide from God

 

[tonyrey]

Even if there were other beings on other planets and worlds (which I personally don’t believe there are), they wouldn’t be deprived of God.

You need to explain why.

 

[Mortification]

You need to explain why.

I believe I already did, when I mentioned the story of Jonah as an example.

It doesn’t matter where in the world or galaxy you are at, the laws of God still apply and you still share the same responsibilities, you can’t escape them. Just because the setting is different doesn’t mean your responsibilities as a Catholic are.

If this other world that is composed of intelligent beings with souls such as us, hasn’t seen the first coming of Christ like we have, I’m guessing they’d be saved much like the people who died before Christ’s first coming, as stated in the Creed where it says he descended into hell (to free the souls that of the people who died before his coming).

So no, I don’t believe there are souls who are deprived of God. The only ones who are, are in a spirit world known as Hell, and that’s because they chose to be there.

 

[empther]

I have already explained in post #41, page 3 of this thread,
that there’s no reason other civilizations could not each have their own Redeemer.

I posted the same ideas on the catholic.org forums years ago. Nobody contested them.

 

[roselily]

It’s virtually certain there is no human life elsewhere in the universe, as from a biological perspective Homo sapiens is a unique product of the long and convoluted history of 3.5 billion years of life on earth. However, the terrestrial uniqueness of human life is irrelevant to the question of whether there is rational, morally responsible, and spiritually aware life elsewhere in the universe.

StAnastasia

True.

:angel1:Merry Christmas, merry Christmas, I wish you and all dear brothers sisters a very blessed happy Christmas.

 

[StAnastasia]

I have already explained in post #41, page 3 of this thread,
that there’s no reason other civilizations could not each have their own Redeemer. I posted the same ideas on the catholic.org forums years ago. Nobody contested them.

Right. This material has been discussed over and over.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe I already did, when I mentioned the story of Jonah as an example.

It doesn’t matter where in the world or galaxy you are at, the laws of God still apply and you still share the same responsibilities, you can’t escape them. Just because the setting is different doesn’t mean your responsibilities as a Catholic are.

If this other world that is composed of intelligent beings with souls such as us, hasn’t seen the first coming of Christ like we have, I’m guessing they’d be saved much like the people who died before Christ’s first coming, as stated in the Creed where it says he descended into hell (to free the souls that of the people who died before his coming).

So no, I don’t believe there are souls who are deprived of God. The only ones who are, are in a spirit world known as Hell, and that’s because they chose to be there.

I agree - with the proviso that “inferos” is not hell…