Are all other worlds deprived of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joshvanrad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From subsequent posts, apparently we’re not allowed to read with our own eyes what is clearly stated any more. Even so, I agree with you and the Pope, and when accused of quote mining will not say I ignored my conscience to follow orders.
Unless I somehow missed it, the moderator has not posted a warning that “we’re not allowed to read with our own eyes what is clearly stated any more.” So I am confused as to how you came up with your statement. Subsequent posts by persons active in this thread, other than yourself, said nothing about not being “allowed to read with our own eyes what is clearly stated any more.”

No poster has authority over another poster. If there is a problem with a post (or posts) it (they) can be reported to the moderator, who has authority.
 
To all thread participants:

In my opinion, this thread has veered way off-topic and no longer bears any resemblance to the first part of the thread. It certainly does not apply to the title of the thread or the OP. But it seems to have settled into a debate on “conscience.”

I suggest we start a new thread, specifically on the subject of “conscience” and how it relates to Church teaching.

I will be happy to start the new thread and post a link in this thread. However, I am asking for (name removed by moderator)ut from other posters. One poster has responded. I’m waiting for other posters to respond.

I believe the Philosophy Sub-forum is the appropriate place for the new thread. If anyone disagrees, please let me know.

This is a fascinating topic to me. Perhaps if a new thread, with an appropriate title, is introduced, more posters will become involved in the discussion.
 
As there appears to be little interest in this topic I have decided to not start a new thread. I’m disappointed because of the lack of actual discussion and interaction between people who should be interested in backing up their views and learning about Church teaching. This thread appears to have been abandoned by some. I’m not the OP of this thread and although I would have been happy to start a new thread it is not my responsibility to continue trying to present Church teaching to those who refuse to accept it.

You are all in my prayers. Really. And I do not mean that in any sort of patronizing, condescending, or insulting way. I hope anyone who reads this prays for me. I need it.

I have now officially left the building and am going to immerse myself in horror story anthologies. I don’t think I’ll be back, except for one thread where I am the OP.

I request that this thread be closed due to it being so far off-topic that it appears to have left the known universe.
 
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?
It wouldn’t necessarily be affected by what happens here.
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?
There are many people on earth who are aware of God’s presence without having heard of Jesus.
Are all the other galaxies in the universe forsaken by God?
Why should they be?
Is it only humans here on earth that are his chosen race or did he send a son to them as well?
There is no reason to believe the Incarnation is limited to this planet…
 
Do you believe that you are the final authority? Do you really believe that what you have said is, on its own, born out by all Scripture, the CCC, and ALL systems of ethics? If you do, I really wonder about what is going on here. It may be entirely uncontroversial to you and it may fit in with *your *concept of common sense. What I am saying is that it cannot stand alone and that fits in with *my *concept of common sense.
As you say, we are now way off topic and while you may now have left the building, I think from what you said subsequently that we were talking at cross-purposes.

Yes, there are those who think that pretending to act in conscience is a loophole, or that conveniently not forming their conscience is a loophole, but then there are also those who think that not acting in conscience (I was only following orders) is a loophole.

I am not talking about any of these but rather someone who has thought long and hard and acts in conscience even though it is more difficult and painful than accepting a loophole defense.

In those circumstances, I know of no Church document which doesn’t hold that the dignity and freedom of the individual person isn’t paramount, the prime example being Dignitatis Humanae:

*This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth.

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.

God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom. This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom God manifested Himself and His ways with men. Christ is at once our Master and our Lord and also meek and humble of heart.

Taught by the word and example of Christ, the Apostles followed the same way. From the very origins of the Church the disciples of Christ strove to convert men to faith in Christ as the Lord; not, however, by the use of coercion or of devices unworthy of the Gospel, but by the power, above all, of the word of God. Steadfastly they proclaimed to all the plan of God our Savior, “who wills that all men should be saved and come to the acknowledgment of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). At the same time, however, they showed respect for those of weaker stuff, even though they were in error, and thus they made it plain that “each one of us is to render to God an account of himself” (Romans 14:12), and for that reason is bound to obey his conscience.*

I could go on, but hopefully you’ll see why I think it’s uncontroversial and that we’ve been talking at cross-purposes.
 
As there appears to be little interest in this topic I have decided to not start a new thread. I’m disappointed because of the lack of actual discussion and interaction between people who should be interested in backing up their views and learning about Church teaching.
Folk are in different time zones, so patience is needed when requesting answers. I’d be interested if we haven’t resolved our differences.
 
There is no reason to believe the Incarnation is limited to this planet…
Yes, I think we must allow that the authors of the Bible wouldn’t even have understood that the Earth is a planet, let alone understand what is meant by “exo-planet”.
 
🙂 Please see post #521.
I did see this: Thank you. I did not get a chance to read every word or to finish scanning it… From what I did see, this is a gem

DECLARATION ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

ON THE RIGHT OF THE PERSON AND OF COMMUNITIES
TO SOCIAL AND CIVIL FREEDOM IN MATTERS RELIGIOUS
PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

The title sounds like the reason the “pilgrims” settled in America. The right of conscience affects the military, health care, as well as congress or any public organization.

From the opening paragraph “This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit.”

Here is another tidbit which was already in practice in the 1940-50’s. I grew up in an area which was a “grass roots” contribution to Catholic teachings in the 1960’s. The whole section needs to be read. I pulled this sentence out because it describes my Dad in that duties in community life was applied to civic responsibility in local government.
#8 “Religious freedom therefore ought to have this further purpose and aim, namely, that men may come to act with greater responsibility in fulfilling their duties in community life.”

#11 in total is fascinating in its reference to Jesus Christ.

Having gone this far, I suggest that the whole be read. If a new thread is started, this would be valuable when addressing an informed conscience.
 
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
Besides my being off topic, I have been trying to establish some kind of base for my thoughts since to me, personally, there may be somewhat contradiction if one approaches OP from a Catholic position.

The title asks – Are all other worlds deprived of God? If yes, then the “sustained intelligent life” has to be clearly defined and set in stone.
 
As you say, we are now way off topic and while you may now have left the building, I think from what you said subsequently that we were talking at cross-purposes.

Yes, there are those who think that pretending to act in conscience is a loophole, or that conveniently not forming their conscience is a loophole, but then there are also those who think that not acting in conscience (I was only following orders) is a loophole.

I am not talking about any of these but rather someone who has thought long and hard and acts in conscience even though it is more difficult and painful than accepting a loophole defense.

In those circumstances, I know of no Church document which doesn’t hold that the dignity and freedom of the individual person isn’t paramount, the prime example being Dignitatis Humanae:

*This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

Truth, however, is to be sought after in a manner proper to the dignity of the human person and his social nature. The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth.

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.

God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom. This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom God manifested Himself and His ways with men. Christ is at once our Master and our Lord and also meek and humble of heart.

Taught by the word and example of Christ, the Apostles followed the same way. From the very origins of the Church the disciples of Christ strove to convert men to faith in Christ as the Lord; not, however, by the use of coercion or of devices unworthy of the Gospel, but by the power, above all, of the word of God. Steadfastly they proclaimed to all the plan of God our Savior, “who wills that all men should be saved and come to the acknowledgment of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). At the same time, however, they showed respect for those of weaker stuff, even though they were in error, and thus they made it plain that “each one of us is to render to God an account of himself” (Romans 14:12), and for that reason is bound to obey his conscience.*

I could go on, but hopefully you’ll see why I think it’s uncontroversial and that we’ve been talking at cross-purposes.
No, I don’t see. 🙂

I merely responded to your question, and to me what I wrote is entirely uncontroversial and is born out by scripture, the CCC, all systems of ethics, and by common sense.

Imho neither you nor tonyrey have made a convincing counter-argument but it’s off-topic and since I seem to be on the same side as granny and the Pope I’ll leave it there.

🙂
 
Folk are in different time zones, so patience is needed when requesting answers. I’d be interested if we haven’t resolved our differences.
No. 🙂

You dismissed my answer with one word. You did not comment on any part of it; you simply dismissed it and you smiled when you did so.

I will not spend my time researching, writing, attempting to be charitable and comprehensive and thorough in my expression of my beliefs when my past attempts have met with the introduction of a straw man, and a dismissal of everything I wrote with a curt “No. :)
 
Wow, the penny has finally dropped. :rolleyes:
No - the penny dropped a long time ago. I believe I mentioned the thread being off-topic many, many posts ago. I was certainly aware of it!

Did you read the other post where I said it is so far off-topic that it appears to have left the known universe?

*That *is pretty far off-topic!

This thread has been jumping all over the place. It’s off the charts. It’s like my fold’s blood test - the readings were so weird that no diagnosis could be made (fortunately he lived, anyway).

Anyway, I just popped in to grab my mac, which I unfortunately left here and I need it as it is raining up a storm. I’m now going to leave the building again.
 
Yes, I think we must allow that the authors of the Bible wouldn’t even have understood that the Earth is a planet, let alone understand what is meant by “exo-planet”.
Although they were divinely inspired their knowledge was far more limited than ours and we are not expected to interpret everything they wrote literally!
 
Although they were divinely inspired their knowledge was far more limited than ours and we are not expected to interpret everything they wrote literally!
If the “we” is the Catholic Church, then there is plenty in the first three chapters of Genesis that is interpreted as referring to literal events.

While I am waiting for a reaction to post 526 regarding “sustained intelligent life” on other planets, I have been thinking about this from the OP. “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?”

The first thing to be considered is this question. How could human life live on another planet deprived of God? Technically, a created planet is sustained by the power of God. If something is deprived of God, that something does not exist. (Genesis 1: 1)
 
*Although they were divinely inspired their knowledge was far more limited than ours and we are not expected to interpret **everything ***
“plenty” is not “everything”!
While I am waiting for a reaction to post 526 regarding “sustained intelligent life” on other planets, I have been thinking about this from the OP. “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?”

The first thing to be considered is this question. How could human life live on another planet deprived of God? Technically, a created planet is sustained by the power of God. If something is deprived of God, that something does not exist.
I think the OP assumes that all life is sustained by God. The issue is whether other forms of intelligent life are deprived of knowledge of God if they have no knowledge of Jesus.
 
No. 🙂

You dismissed my answer with one word. You did not comment on any part of it; you simply dismissed it and you smiled when you did so.

I will not spend my time researching, writing, attempting to be charitable and comprehensive and thorough in my expression of my beliefs when my past attempts have met with the introduction of a straw man, and a dismissal of everything I wrote with a curt “No. :)
I didn’t mean to be curt but had decided not to make my own arguments countering your view because from what you had said, I believed (and still do) that you would just dismiss them, and would only accept an official Church document, which is why I found, linked and quoted Dignitatis Humanae.

I was also hoping we had simply misunderstood each other, but it appears we’re so far apart that we probably need a mediator to find common ground, otherwise further discussion will just lead to more bad feelings. I’m sorry you feel as you do.
 
The point being what?
The question is: Would Christ still have walked if there were only x people on Earth?

If you answer x = one million, you’d need to justify why you think Christ wouldn’t have come for one person less, which you couldn’t. Same for every value of x down to one. Ergo, spiritually, Christ died for each of us individually. Christ died for you. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top