E.T. phone Rome: Vatican looks for signs of alien life

[torch621]

Can we dispense with the New Age psychobabble and get back on topic please?

 

[Detales]

q.e.d.

 

[Areopagite]

I specified **basic **spiritual truths. Obviously religions differ on their detailed interpretations but they are clearly distinguishable from ideologies based on materialism.

Yes but you didn’t even state what basic truths you are talking about. Simply saying “the soul” (for example) doesn’t express anything that you can give a true or false value judgment to. What about the soul? What about those other things? Beliefs must be expressed in the form of a judgment/proposition. It has to be something like “The soul is [something]” … not simply “the soul.” You see what I’m saying?

Unfortunately, this has not really been the main focus or effect when Christians have met “uncivilized” or non-Christian peoples, in the past.

Really? What makes you say this?

I’m afraid I don’t have much confidence that we would behave any better if we met aliens.

That depends of course on our own holiness. We must first look to our own sanctification before we try and sanctify others. If we (the missionaries, particularly) are well-formed in their faith and living it faithfully, then I certainly would expect them to behave better than the aliens (if, in fact, the aliens are in need of the Catholic faith).

Would we even be able to recognize it if they were not fallen, or not in need of directly hearing the Christian message, or would we assume they were sinners and in need of our guidance?

These are good questions. One thing for sure is that Catholic theologians need to figure out the question whether Christ’s sacrifice is only applicable to the rational beings descended from Adam. They are split on that issue. Augustine, I believe, certainly said that Christ would only be applicable to Adam’s descendants. If he’s right, then, if aliens clearly have a radically different genetic makeup than us, I believe we would not need to evangelize them. However, it seems like the more common opinion among Vatican officials is that Christ is sufficient for all other rational animals. If that is the case, then we would be right to evangelize them. But if they’re unfallen? I think this can be determined whether they commit evil or not … and I think that would be easy enough to figure out (but you are free to disagree). But really, the Church has to clarify the doctrine regarding how far Christ’s graces extend to. That’s my take on the matter.

Would such people be able to defend themselves against our efforts to save them?

What? Well, it depends what you mean by this. Certainly, pagan cultures have “defended themselves against our efforts to save them” by making martyrs of missionaries. But that usually ended up converting them. What are you talking about here?

 

[Areopagite]

I find myself agreeing with Bluegoat. The results of missioanryism of any faith have generally been devastating, especially during colonial times. Now the damage is less in the physical realm, some actual medical good actually happening, and perhaps some economic, but spreading faiths based on wrong premises is still a highly questionable practice on any scale of evaluation, save, of course, the self-congratualtory values of the missionaries and their supporters. God save us from missionaries!!!

So, you acknowledge that missionaries have improved the physical well-being of people (right?), but have devastated their spiritual well-being. And the reason you say this is that you simply disagree with the Catholic faith (or something like that, right?).

“Not quite true. The basic truth for Christianity is that God became Incarnate and died for our sins and that God is a Trinity. No other religion teaches that.” Fortunately not. At least those are not being misled by a near-truth.

…

As for the quote from Pope Benedict, as good intentioned and as good a man he might be, as well as many of his flock, his statement as you present it ignores the centuries of horrors and violences done in the name of Jesus and the christianist god, starting with the beginnings of the institution. Those, in the balance, seem to me to be the true revelation of the infallibly misguided understanding of the Teaching attributed to Jesus, whose own words belie the Church–if interpreted by means of the original intent, as far as I can see.

Once again, you fail to back up these bold claims. * Starting from the beginning of the institution*? What? What are you referring to?

Further, Jesus and Christ are so often used as a first and last name that we forget that historically it is only in relatively recent times, the 1300’s I think, that it became fashionable to translate what had been “healer” as “Christ.” The word “christ” literally means “anointed.” It has a very specific esoteric referent, grossly misunderstood an misrepresented by the Church. Jesus, as potrayed, was intended to be a metaphoric example of healing the rift between the necessary localized beliefs of any group of people and the Undersatanding of our actual Nature, Structure, and Being as Man. This has devolved into a dwarfed belief system capable of the attrocities ignored by the good Benedict, and transcended by such as the St. Theresa you later quote and even Aquinas just before his death.

What exactly are you saying that St. Theresa and Aquinas transcended? They transcended the first and last name style of saying “Jesus Christ?” What?

It is because people believe things as you posted, and because missionaries spread such beliefs, that it is vitally important for each of us to re-examine in great depth, detail, and emotional dispassion, where and how we acquire our religious faith. Speaking as a former practicing Catholic, I cannot emphasize enough what a great value this examination will yield. You will not be deceived.

I agree that one should reflect on their faith, of course. But what you seem to suggest is that apostasy from Catholicism is a necessary ingredient. How do you know that you haven’t been deceived? No offense.

One of the most unattractive factors to an ET approaching Earth, one of the most profoundly puzzling ones, might very well be that our psycho-spiritual maturity has been vastly outpaced by the technological knowledge which we are misusing to our own, and the planet’s suicidal an murderous end.

I agree. I think it is essential to improve ourselves spiritually before improving others. On the other hand, even if the majority of the world has gone to hell, there is no reason why some individual interstellar missionaries wouldn’t be fit to evangelize extraterrestrials.

It may be a great misfortune that our broadcasts, especially fictional and religious broadcasts (those being distinguished only by theme) may be picked up by a mature race. Would they want to put us out of our misery, or put us in a corrective Coventry, if they ever made contact?

On the other hand, the aliens might be worse off.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes but you didn’t even state what basic truths you are talking about. Simply saying “the soul” (for example) doesn’t express anything that you can give a true or false value judgment to.

When it is taken in conjunction with belief in God, an afterlife, free will and responsibility it is sufficiently precise to describe it as true.

What about the soul? What about those other things? Beliefs must be expressed in the form of a judgment/proposition. It has to be something like “The soul is [something]” … not simply “the soul.” You see what I’m saying?

You are demanding a degree of precision which is not required in this context. It is unnecessary to go into a detailed explanation of how far religions agree and differ. I simply wanted to support my original statement:
“Even this world we cannot assume that revelation is the exclusive prerogative of Christians. The great religions all teach the same basic spiritual truths and have inspired prophets and mystics.”
Do you believe God has not revealed truths to non-Christians?

 

[Bluegoat]

Really? What makes you say this?

That depends of course on our own holiness. We must first look to our own sanctification before we try and sanctify others. If we (the missionaries, particularly) are well-formed in their faith and living it faithfully, then I certainly would expect them to behave better than the aliens (if, in fact, the aliens are in need of the Catholic faith).

These are good questions. One thing for sure is that Catholic theologians need to figure out the question whether Christ’s sacrifice is only applicable to the rational beings descended from Adam. They are split on that issue. Augustine, I believe, certainly said that Christ would only be applicable to Adam’s descendants. If he’s right, then, if aliens clearly have a radically different genetic makeup than us, I believe we would not need to evangelize them. However, it seems like the more common opinion among Vatican officials is that Christ is sufficient for all other rational animals. If that is the case, then we would be right to evangelize them. But if they’re unfallen? I think this can be determined whether they commit evil or not … and I think that would be easy enough to figure out (but you are free to disagree). But really, the Church has to clarify the doctrine regarding how far Christ’s graces extend to. That’s my take on the matter.

What? Well, it depends what you mean by this. Certainly, pagan cultures have “defended themselves against our efforts to save them” by making martyrs of missionaries. But that usually ended up converting them. What are you talking about here?

Um, have you read about the attempts of the various branches of Christianity to convert the non-Christian groups they met? In many cases, the treatment and effects on those populations have been devastating. In other cases, they simply failed to understand the people they were dealing with to the degree that the attempt to evangelize were not only ineffective, but detrimental to their growth as Christians. OUr history with other humans being so poor does not bode particularly well for alien life forms - why would we show them more respect?

A rase of rational aliens that were not fallen, if such a thing could exist, would seem to me to be particularly vulnerable to our bad behavior, and likely unable to defend themselves against it. Can a group of people who don’t know what it is to lie, for example, detect dishonesty in others? Humans never seem to hesitate to press their advantage in such situations.

 

[Detales]

Words of both wisdom and accurate perception. You are dealing here, Bluegoat, with degrees and kinds of pious ingenouity. It is to be expected that one clings to their original serving of thought forms, but sad to see an unwillingness to go beyond them, or at least be curious.

 

[benedictus2]

“Not quite true. The basic truth for Christianity is that God became Incarnate and died for our sins and that God is a Trinity. No other religion teaches that.” Fortunately not. At least those are not being misled by a near-truth.

If this is a near-truth. What then is truth as you know it?

“Revelation may not be the exclusive prerogative of Christians but only in Christianity did God reveal in the form of Man.” In christianism the actuality of God revealing in the form of man has been distorted beyond recognition of the actuality, and made into a mockery of truth by historicizing the journey of each individual into the legend of one individual’s ascribed status. There are many useful works on this theme. One to start with could be The Hero With a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. There are libraries of material on this, all, as a general rule, studiously ignored by christianists and other religionists.

What proof do you have that the actuality of God revealing in the form of man has been distorted beyond recognition?

As for the quote from Pope Benedict, as good intentioned and as good a man he might be, as well as many of his flock, his statement as you present it ignores the centuries of horrors and violences done in the name of Jesus and the christianist god,

The evil that some Christians have done is not what Christianity is all about. You need to learn to seperate the the two.

starting with the beginnings of the institution. Those, in the balance, seem to me to be the true revelation of the infallibly misguided understanding of the Teaching attributed to Jesus, whose own words belie the Church–if interpreted by means of the original intent, as far as I can see.

Obviously as far as you can see is a an inch from your nose. What makes you the authority to decide which one is the truth?

Further, Jesus and Christ are so often used as a first and last name that we forget that historically it is only in relatively recent times, the 1300’s I think, that it became fashionable to translate what had been “healer” as “Christ.” The word “christ” literally means “anointed.” It has a very specific esoteric referent, grossly misunderstood an misrepresented by the Church.

If there is anyone who is ill-equipped to represent Christ it is you. The Church never ever translated Christ as Healer. If you will get the facts straigth you migh sound a little bit more credible.

Jesus, as potrayed, was intended to be a metaphoric example of healing the rift between the necessary localized beliefs of any group of people and the Undersatanding of our actual Nature, Structure, and Being as Man.

A load of garbage. Is this your new-age mangling of the Gospel that is Jesus Christ?

This has devolved into a dwarfed belief system capable of the attrocities ignored by the good Benedict, and transcended by such as the St. Theresa you later quote and even Aquinas just before his death.

I think it is your belief system that is a dwarf. Not dwarrf. Minute. A belief system that panders to yiour own ego, one that follows the unholy Trinity of I/Me and Myself. That is okay, one is always free to delude one’s self.

It is because people believe things as you posted, and because missionaries spread such beliefs, that it is vitally important for each of us to re-examine in great depth, detail, and emotional dispassion, where and how we acquire our religious faith. Speaking as a former practicing Catholic, I cannot emphasize enough what a great value this examination will yield. You will not be deceived.

We are not deceived but you most obviously are. By your own spin.

 

[torch621]

If this is a near-truth. What then is truth as you know it?

What proof do you have that the actuality of God revealing in the form of man has been distorted beyond recognition?

The evil that some Christians have done is not what Christianity is all about. You need to learn to seperate the the two.

Obviously as far as you can see is a an inch from your nose. What makes you the authority to decide which one is the truth?

If there is anyone who is ill-equipped to represent Christ it is you. The Church never ever translated Christ as Healer. If you will get the facts straigth you migh sound a little bit more credible.

A load of garbage. Is this your new-age mangling of the Gospel that is Jesus Christ?

I think it is your belief system that is a dwarf. Not dwarrf. Minute. A belief system that panders to yiour own ego, one that follows the unholy Trinity of I/Me and Myself. That is okay, one is always free to delude one’s self.

We are not deceived but you most obviously are. By your own spin.

Couldn’t have said it any better myself benedictus ^^

 

[Areopagite]

Um, have you read about the attempts of the various branches of Christianity to convert the non-Christian groups they met? In many cases, the treatment and effects on those populations have been devastating. In other cases, they simply failed to understand the people they were dealing with to the degree that the attempt to evangelize were not only ineffective, but detrimental to their growth as Christians. OUr history with other humans being so poor does not bode particularly well for alien life forms - why would we show them more respect?

The only examples that I can think of regarding attempts to convert people that end up in real disaster is when secular rulers got involved for the wrong reasons. I can’t think of any missionaries who caused disaster. I don’t doubt there were some. But I’ve never heard of them. I suspect they are exceptions. But if not, I hope someone enlightens me on this.

A rase of rational aliens that were not fallen, if such a thing could exist, would seem to me to be particularly vulnerable to our bad behavior, and likely unable to defend themselves against it. Can a group of people who don’t know what it is to lie, for example, detect dishonesty in others? Humans never seem to hesitate to press their advantage in such situations.

An interesting idea. My inclination would be to think that an unfallen race would not be weak. They would be more intelligent, I would think, since sin wouldn’t cloud their intellect. On the other hand, if they’re not used to evil … I suppose they could be deceived … just like ol’ Adam and Eve.

When it is taken in conjunction with belief in God, an afterlife, free will and responsibility it is sufficiently precise to describe it as true. You are demanding a degree of precision which is not required in this context. It is unnecessary to go into a detailed explanation of how far religions agree and differ. I simply wanted to support my original statement:
“Even this world we cannot assume that revelation is the exclusive prerogative of Christians. The great religions all teach the same basic spiritual truths and have inspired prophets and mystics.”

I just have no idea what you’re talking about. Depending on what you mean by “basic spiritual truths” I don’t know whether to agree or disagree that all the “great religions” teach them. You cannot teach “the soul” or “God” or “responsibility” unless you say something about them. Do they teach the same things about them? I’m not so quick to say yes on that. But perhaps you know something that I don’t.

Do you believe God has not revealed truths to non-Christians?

I believe that God* has *revealed things to non-Christians, most definitely. It would be useful, however, to distinguish between public and private revelation. God reveals to things to individuals all the time, no matter what their religion. However, He has only made one religion where supernatural truths are publicly revealed. The other religions do not contain supernatural truths … but either merely natural ones … and/or errors.

Would you agree?

Perhaps I have misspoken, and if so, I ask to be corrected.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe that God* has *revealed things to non-Christians, most definitely. It would be useful, however, to distinguish between public and private revelation. God reveals to things to individuals all the time, no matter what their religion. However, He has only made one religion where supernatural truths are publicly revealed. The other religions do not contain supernatural truths … but either merely natural ones … and/or errors.
Would you agree?

If God reveals to things to individuals all the time non-Christian religions must contain supernatural truths…

 

[tonyrey]

I believe that God* has *revealed things to non-Christians, most definitely. It would be useful, however, to distinguish between public and private revelation. God reveals to things to individuals all the time, no matter what their religion. However, He has only made one religion where supernatural truths are publicly revealed. The other religions do not contain supernatural truths … but either merely natural ones … and/or errors.
Would you agree?

If God reveals things to individuals all the time non-Christian religions must contain supernatural truths…

 

[Bob_Crowley]

An article in an English newspaper raised the question of salvation for ETs. Are only human beings redeemed by the death of Jesus on the Cross? The obvious answer is “We don’t know” but that can be seen as an evasion.

If the Redemption is restricted to human beings what happens to persons on other planets? If we need to be liberated from evil so do they. There is no reason why Jesus should not have chosen to be born and die elsewhere in the universe as well as here. To our human ideas of economy it may seem unlikely but God’s ways are not our ways. No one could have predicted that Jesus would become a man on this earth, let alone elsewhere.

On the other hand, if the Redemption is not restricted to human beings there is no need for Jesus to have sacrificed Himself more than once. There is no reason why Jesus should not have chosen to be born solely in this world. The infinite power of His love is not limited by time and space…

So what is the most likely answer? I think the immense distances between habitable planets make it unlikely that contact will be made between us and other persons. So they will not have the opportunity to know the teaching of Jesus through us. They will apparently be left in the dark if there is only one Incarnation. And it may seem unfair that they are left in ignorance through no fault of their own. But are they?

Even this world we cannot assume that revelation is the exclusive prerogative of Christians. The great religions all teach the same basic spiritual truths and have had inspired prophets and mystics. Nor can we rule out revelations to individuals who have no religion. If a person is searching for the truth surely God will respond. No human father would ignore his own child…

So I believe the Redemption applies to every person throughout the universe even if they never know Jesus died for them. It already applies to millions of non-Christians who have lived in this world. The Church teaches that we all have a conscience which is our ultimate authority - and this must be true of every person, human or non-human. The way to heaven is not an obstacle race but an invitation to a feast. It is a pursuit - but a pursuit of love and perfection which is not restricted to the chosen few but open to all: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions”…

CS Lewis wrote an essay on this topic called “Religion and Rocketry”. He quoted Aquinas who had been posed the question of whether Satyrs existed, and if so, what was their redemptive status. His response was that the question could wait until we knew there were any.

I think the same thing applies to alien life forms. If they’re fallen, we’ll soon find out, especially if they’re far more advanced than we are. If they’re more primitive, we’ll exploit them just as we do our own kind and the animals, and even inanimate matter. To quote CS Lewis, “What we do to those weaker than ourselves, the black man and the red man can tell us.”

If they’re not fallen, they’ll probably destroy us first, since they’ll soon work out we can’t be trusted. A race which routinely mass murders its own kind will not make a favourable impression on an advanced species which operates with perfect unamity.

I wouldn’t put much faith in this speculation.

 

[Fran65]

Aeropagite,

From the Catechism:

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

Nowhere in here does it say that *all *supernatural truths are exclusive to the Catholic Church.

 

[Detales]

Thank you, Fran.

 

[Areopagite]

If God reveals things to individuals all the time non-Christian religions must contain supernatural truths…

This does not follow. God can reveal natural truths to people that they wouldn’t otherwise figure out, even though they technically have the capacity to. Even the Ten Commandments were revealed, and yet they can be discovered by natural reason (though I’m not saying that all truths in the Bible are natural ones).

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

I’m quite sure it’s talking about other Christian denominations, which are extracts of Catholicism … in which case, they are technically still part of the Church (that is, part of the mystical body), even if they are not in full communion with the Catholic hierarchy. So, this does not disprove my point (that the only religion that contains supernatural truths is Christianity). Now, I may be wrong. But someone has yet to show this to me.

 

[tonyrey]

I wouldn’t put much faith in this speculation.

Speculation based on Christian beliefs is not worthless if it is consistent with facts. Speculation.is sometimes necessary to demonstrate that a Christian doctrine like the Incarnation is not weakened by the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe. It helps to put our beliefs in their true context and highlight the fact that Christianity is not an anthropomorphic superstition which puts human beings at the centre of the universe but a revelation by God of the laws of spiritual development which apply to persons wherever they may exist.

 

[Detales]

Tonyrey~~It helps to put our beliefs in their true context and highlight the fact that Christianity is not an anthropomorphic superstition which puts human beings at the centre of the universe but a revelation by God of the laws of spiritual development which apply to persons wherever they may exist.

Acknowledging the sincerity and importance of your concern, I submit that Christianity is a codification of some of the laws of spiritual development which apply to persons wherever they may exist, couched in an anthropomorphic superstition which puts humans at the center of the Universe. That is not new. It is just what can be grown out of.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey~~It helps to put our beliefs in their true context and highlight the fact that Christianity is not an anthropomorphic superstition which puts human beings at the centre of the universe but a revelation by God of the laws of spiritual development which apply to persons wherever they may exist.

Acknowledging the sincerity and importance of your concern, I submit that Christianity is a codification of some of the laws of spiritual development which apply to persons wherever they may exist, couched in an anthropomorphic superstition which puts humans at the center of the Universe. That is not new. It is just what can be grown out of.

Detales, the Church teaches that we are the stewards of Creation, not its sole benefactors. Nor does that imply we are the only stewards. How could we possibly be held responsible for what happens throughout the entire universe? We already have quite enough to keep us busy!

 

[Detales]

I’m only saying that the Laws of God must apply in all Creation. To whatever extent the Fathers of the Church retained parts of the teachings of Jesus as a story, to that extent those universal laws are “codified.” Since they are incomplete as the Church has them and they are in his-story form, there is more that we can learn. I do not mean by that that we need to build space/time ships and save all sentient beings in the scope of Hubble and beyond. We might not even recognize them as sentient, in the same way we might not recognize Jesus Himself if he came back without the fanfare.