Are all other worlds deprived of God?

[LittleSoldier]

The original question was:

"How could they (persons on other planets) be aware of God’s presence when Jesus was sent to earth?

We could never have imagined that the omnipotent Creator of the universe would appear as a helpless baby at the mercy of His creatures! Anthony Flew called it “the scandal of particularity”. Yet a loving God wouldn’t leave His children totally in the dark and without help in their struggle against evil. The beauty of Christ’s teaching and love for us is sufficent evidence that He was not a lunatic or a liar.

Since it is very unlikely that the Good News has reaching other planets God must have enlightened them in some other way. We can speculate but one thing is certain. It is extremely unlikely our speculation will hit the mark…

Missed that 20-minute cut-off for editing, eh?

 

[LittleSoldier]

There is no evidence whasoever that we are the only creatures who have a soul.

I agree - unless the Church teaches otherwise. She would have to teach that only human beings have souls and that only those organisms with souls can enter heaven.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Edit to poorly-worded post #431:

Perhaps people who lived 200 years ago DID think about whether “something” found inside a human being was in fact, another human being.

…but they didn’t have to think about DNA, so there.

 

[tonyrey]

#429

I stand by every word I have written in post #429…

 

[LittleSoldier]

I stand by every word I have written in post #429…

Good comeback!

 

[tonyrey]

I agree - unless the Church teaches otherwise. She would have to teach that only human beings have souls and that only those organisms with souls can enter heaven.

Thank God she doesn’t; otherwise I would be a heretic! She wouldn’t, of course, because it would rule out persons on other planets for a start…

 

[tonyrey]

Aren’t we justified in killing in self-defence or the defence of others?

Even if a person is not trying to kill us or others but does so unwittingly we are still entitled to defend others even if not ourselves.

Suppose, for example, we know a hostage will be killed anyway but his or her death will save many people would you do nothing?

 

[LittleSoldier]

The following link is presented by another poster. This separate link is, in my personal, humble opinion, a distraction. If my humble opinion is not acceptable, then that person has my humble apology.

**Please note that the real thing of “fetus in fetu” is very, very rare. **

Do note that the link’s opening definition of a parasitic twin refers to processes as the source and not to human parents as the source.

*(“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin”)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin from another poster above.

The opening sentence is: A parasitic twin (also known as an asymmetrical or unequal conjoined twin) is the result of the processes that produce vanishing twins and conjoined twins, and may represent a continuum between the two.citation needed]

First I checked out the link to “vanishing twins.” It opened to: "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Medicine or the Medicine Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (November 2008)"

Next I checked out the link to conjoined twins. It opened to: “Siamese twins” redirects here." Please look closely at the picture. No enveloped parasite.

Finally I checked “citation needed”. My suggestion is for readers to check this link directly. Close to the beginning is this sentence. “Exercise caution before relying upon unsourced claims.”

Wiki is really bad. I once added “calaboose” to adjectives of “jail” and then found out it means “courtroom.” I supposed I should delete it one of these days.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Even if a person is not trying to kill us or others but does so unwittingly we are still entitled to defend others even if not ourselves.

Suppose, for example, we know a hostage will be killed anyway but his or her death will save many people would you do nothing?

That is a VERY good question! Thank you! Now I have to stop joking around (I’m trying to keep my mind off my missing cat who is probably deceased as there has been a rash of coyote sightings and it’s also snowing) and be serious.

First, please let me ask a question:

How do we know the hostage will be killed anyway?

 

[tonyrey]

Even if a person is not trying to kill us or others but does so unwittingly

I’m sorry to hear about your cat. I live in a city but cats disappear quite regularly in the winter and foxes have even gone into a primary school in broad daylight!

How do we know the hostage will be killed anyway?

It’s hypothetical but there are ruthless killers whose sole aim is destruction - for one “reason” or another.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m sorry to hear about your cat. I live in a city but cats disappear quite regularly in the winter and foxes have even gone into a primary school in broad daylight!

Thank you. I know that NeNe has always belonged to God, not me, and I’m slowly coming to understand that it’s NeNe’s happiness and health that is important. If he is with God he is OK, although I miss him so much. I’m not positive but I think I will see him again in heaven. If any cat belongs there it is NeNe.

It’s hypothetical but there are ruthless killers whose sole aim is destruction - for one “reason” or another.

I don’t think you really answered my question and it is important. There is really no way to know if the hostage will be killed.

I could not, in good conscience, allow the hostage to be killed, even if it would save ten billion people. I would try to save the hostage and everyone else. If the people who are holding the hostage were killed, that would be acceptable (although very tragic) as they are not innocent.

If I were the hostage I would gladly give my life to save one person.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Addendum to above post:

The chief priests, therefore, and the Pharisees gathered a council and said: What do we, for this man does many miracles? If we let him alone so, all will believe in him; and the Romans will come, and take away our place and nation. But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not. And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. And not only for the nation, but to gather together in one the children of God that were dispersed. From that day therefore they devised to put him to death.

[John 11:47-53, underlining by this poster for emphasis]

Caipha was the high priest who wanted Jesus dead. Jesus was the hostage who gave His life for not just a nation but the entire world.

Please read the CCC quote in post #433. I added it after you responded.

 

[Faithdancer]

“The Vatican’s senior scientist Brother Guy Consolmagno is ready to greet alien life and will be happy to baptize any of them should the opportunities present themselves.”
huliq.com/10061/vatican-scientists-approve-evolution-and-alien-life

 

[LittleSoldier]

You may be right but I **believe **we are justified in killing one innocent person if the
the survival of millions of innocent persons depends **solely **on our decision.

What if I **believe **that we are justified in directly killing the unborn? This is NOT what the Church teaches! Please read the CCC quote in post #433. We do not have the right to slaughter an innocent person to save anyone. It is not our place; it is not our choice; it is not our call, and to do so shows an attempt to put ourselves above God. We are NOT justified in killing even one innocent person. The ends do not justify the means.

Jesus said “Do not fear those who kill the body…”

So are we now allowed to go around killing innocent people all willy-nilly?

IMHO If this were the only life we have it would be the greatest of all evils not to kill the unwitting cause of the death of millions of innocent persons but since we survive after death the greatest evil is to allow them to die because I choose what I sincerely believe is the lesser of two evils. I am sure he or she would forgive me in the next life on discovering the agonising choice I had to make.

I can speak only for myself and I don’t claim to be infallible…

And that is why it is important to follow Church teaching. Jesus promised us that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. As to what “he or she would forgive” - you are not privy to that information. You don’t know if the person you allow to be slaughtered will forgive you or not. You can’t even know if that person will even end up in heaven and if you allow him or her to be killed he or she may end up in hell when he or she would have ended up in heaven if you hadn’t allowed his or her death.

We need to follow ALL Church teaching. If we don’t we are Cafeteria Catholics; only choosing that which appeals to us, trying to fit the Church into our ideas of what the Church is.

We cannot perform an evil act, even if the ends are good. That goes against Church teaching.

Are we off-topic here? I think we are.

 

[LittleSoldier]

“The Vatican’s senior scientist Brother Guy Consolmagno is ready to greet alien life and will be happy to baptize any of them should the opportunities present themselves.”
huliq.com/10061/vatican-scientists-approve-evolution-and-alien-life

I suggest that readers do not click on the links in the article as they lead only to advertisements (if I had a dollar for every Walmart gift card I have won I would be a millionaire). Also, I could find nothing in the body of the article that stated anything like what is claimed in the title.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thank God she doesn’t; otherwise I would be a heretic! She wouldn’t, of course, because it would rule out persons on other planets for a start…

She would if it is true that there are no other persons on other planets. The Church does not determine truth; she only presents and clarifies it and we are not allowed to vote on what she teaches.

 

[tonyrey]

             *You may be right but I **believe ***

If the mother’s life is at stake and she has other children she is entitled to allow her unborn to die because it is the lesser of two evils.

This is NOT what the Church teaches! Please read the CCC quote in post #433. We do not have the right to slaughter an innocent person to save anyone. It is not our place; it is not our choice; it is not our call, and to do so shows an attempt to put ourselves above God. We are NOT justified in killing even one innocent person. The ends do not justify the means.

We have the right to allow a person to die if it is the lesser evil.

Jesus said “Do not fear those who kill the body…”

So are we now allowed to go around killing innocent people all willy-nilly?

Non sequitur.

IMHO If this were the only life we have it would be the greatest of all evils not to kill the unwitting cause of the death of millions of innocent persons but since we survive after death the greatest evil is to allow them to die because I choose what I sincerely believe is the lesser of two evils

. I am sure he or she would forgive me in the next life on discovering the agonising choice I had to make.

I can speak only for myself and I don’t claim to be infallible… And that is why it is important to follow Church teaching. Jesus promised us that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. As to what “he or she would forgive” - you are not privy to that information. You don’t know if the person you allow to be slaughtered will forgive you or not. You can’t even know if that person will even end up in heaven and if you allow him or her to be killed he or she may end up in hell when he or she would have ended up in heaven if you hadn’t allowed his or her death.

We need to follow ALL Church teaching. If we don’t we are Cafeteria Catholics; only choosing that which appeals to us, trying to fit the Church into our ideas of what the Church is.

We cannot perform an evil act, even if the ends are good. That goes against Church teaching.

Are we off-topic here? I think we are.

The Church teaches that** our conscience is our ultimate authority**…

There are very tragic cases where the distinction between allowing a person to die and killing a person becomes arbitrary and legalistic. In both cases we are fully aware of the end result and directly responsible for the means by which it is achieved.

 

[grannymh]

The Church teaches that** our conscience is our ultimate authority**…

Our conscience is our ultimate authority?
Ultimate?

Even if a person did not know what the Catholic Church teaches about our human conscience, common sense should say that a human conscience is not
the ultimate authority over God.

What the Catholic Church does teach about the human conscience is that our human conscience does need to be informed. Informed as in knowing what is good in the eyes of God, i.e., God’s laws or requirements.

We need to remember that we are the creatures and that God is the ultimate authority.

 

[grannymh]

If the mother’s life is at stake and she has other children she is entitled to allow her unborn to die because it is the lesser of two evils.

In the 21st century, due to modern medical technology, it is possible to save both a mother’s life and her child’s life.

 

[inocente]

Our conscience is our ultimate authority?
Ultimate?

We need to remember that we are the creatures and that God is the ultimate authority.

A word of caution. We are never to act against our own conscience, even if someone else tells us it’s not what God wants, since that would be the ultimate “I was only following orders” excuse. In other words, how can we know what God wants except through our God-given conscience? Why else did He give it?

We need to be informed so we can decide what we believe is right, but blindly enslaving ourselves to someone else’s dictat of what God requires of us would be the most extreme form of idolization - that’s how some of those wicked cults get started.