|
Post by guillaume on Oct 22, 2008 14:38:57 GMT
This subject had been recently rejuvenated in the medias. But I have question. Do you believe planet earth is the only planet in the universe that God decided to create life ? If so why ? and if there is another form of life in this massive universe, did Jesus also came there ? And reenacted on somehow His Passion ?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 22, 2008 23:15:22 GMT
I am sceptical on the matter - there are no data so wait and see. The idea that there might have been many different Passions is a legitimate theological speculation. The novel A CASE OF CONSCIENCE by James Blish is an interesting discussion from a non-Catholic (semi-gnostic) perspective of the theological difficulties posed by extra-terrestrial life.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 22, 2008 23:16:22 GMT
If you asked Yes or No - I don't believe the UFOs seen around our planet are alien craft.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 23, 2008 23:12:27 GMT
Paul says that if Jesus is not risen from the dead all our hope is vain. That sounds like a reference to a rather important miracle. He also says he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 24, 2008 8:35:18 GMT
The question as it stands for this thread is open to misinterpretation as it always goes one of two ways.
People either answer the question directly and say whether they think there is ships visiting us or not.
Or people go to the wrong question and start discussing whether there might be life on other planets. An interesting question of course but its not the one asked.
However I will give my own answer for both.
There is no evidence to suggest the claims of sightings are either false or true alas. There is evidence however to suggest they are unlikely. Current science precludes objects travelling faster than light so the chances of another species popping over and popping home again are, to our current science, highly unlikely.
It is also highly unlikely that another species would even know we were here, even if they did have the capability of faster than light travel.
So although there is no proof for yes, and no proof for no, we can very easily say that the proposition is a highly unlikely one and we go about our lives based on that probability (after all we do not finance personal abduction protection and the like).
As for life arising on other planets, the side question. This we do have evidence for. That evidence is US. Clearly life has arisen on a planet.
So here we have the opposite case as with the UFOs. There is no evidence to say there is or is not life on other planets. However given that we known life does arise we can safely say it is likely there is other life out there. As with UFOs we respond to the probabilities and we DO finance projects to find the answer for this one.
It is a great sadness in my heart to think, if there is other life, that we may never know each other. What beauty and joy would be added to the already wonderful nature of life itself should we discover that we have comrades in arms in life’s wonderful struggle.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 29, 2008 8:12:46 GMT
The prime error of atheism is the fact that they blindly ignore all evidence sitting on the tip of their nose. Maybe if you were to stop talking about the fact there is evidence there and instead discuss what that evidence is then you might be more helpful to them? Otherwise it sounds all a little elitest "I know what the evidence is, you dont, but i dont care to tell you" and you wonder why they do not see your point of view.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 29, 2008 9:40:35 GMT
It appears the miracle stories were added later after 70CE in the gospels starting with Mark and they become more elaborate with Matthew, Luke and John. Elaborate maybe. Original I am afraid not. There are SO many parallels between Jesus and the myths that existed before the time of Jesus that it is clear where the inspiration came from. Even a cursory glance at the legends of Attis, Dionis, Horace, Krishna and Mithra shows that there is nothing original about the miracles tacked on to Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 29, 2008 15:18:49 GMT
The similarities between the story of Jesus and various other messianic pagan stories have been known the Chrsitans since the early days of the Church. One widespread response has been that these were unconscious anticipations and echoes; that Jesus is at the centre of creation and these foreshadowed him. (This can apply to historical figures as well - Socrates was often venerated by Christian philosophers like Justin Martyr as a protoype of Jesus, because he sought truth by his own light and died for it, whatever shortcomings he may have had; and saints and martyrs try to be other Jesuses in their own way). Hemingway; Could it be that St. Paul does not mention the miracles because he is not writing to make converts but as a theologian elucidating the implications of the Faith for those who have already accepted it - i.e. he takes their knowledge of the basic Christian story for granted. Jesus is pretty clearly historical in a way Horus was not, given that there are documents produced by his followers within decades of his death, whereas Horus is situated in a mythic timespace. BTW I thought it was Osiris who died and was resurrected and Horus who avenged him; what is your source for these "parallels"?
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 29, 2008 15:20:04 GMT
Time to give my tuppenceworth on this subject. Hemingway was correct in his first reply, you must define terms. Of course UFOs exist so it is not a question of believing in them but figuring out what they are. Second, we all must try to keep on the subject matter of each thread and try not to digress too much. This way readers interested in the subject matter will retain their interest. What Guillaume really asks is do we believe any of these UFOs are aliens visiting the earth. Again the answer to this depends on your mindset. I think absolutely not. An atheist like some of our friends online will probably say 'they could be' which means they do believe in the probability of aliens, and the modern Catholics will believe anything.
I do not believe because the question is abhorrent to my faith. I have told friends that if aliens were to present themselves, my Catholic faith would be seriously compromised. The revelations of Genesis show God is a trinity, each with a specific function. Genesis reveals only two intellectual creations, angels and man, both of whom had to undergo tests of their free will. In man’s case the Second and Third persons fulfilled their part in our redemption. Now try to fit in other ‘earths’ and other creatures with intelligence and what you get is speculation that stretches Catholic theology to the limit of absurdity. We go from ‘God could have created other worlds and aliens if He wanted’ to the next question: ‘Did they have a test? Surely they must have if Catholic theology on angels and man is to mean something? If so, did they fail it or pass it?’ This moves on to ‘If they passed it will there by aliens in heaven alongside humans? Ever hear anything so absurd? If they failed it how then did they get an opportunity to get to heaven? God is a Trinity and He has only one Son capable of offering that ONE sacrifice necessary for salvation, so how could aliens be redeemed, an alien mother of God and an alien Christ? Will Mary find ET looking at her in heaven? The thing just gets more and more ridiculous, unworthy of Catholic consideration.
That said some of the Fathers considered the matter at length. Find a website on St Thomas Aquinas’s ‘one world’ only and if you have a week to spare read what they said on it.
But not to worry because our faith will never be made ridiculous. There is not one shred of scientific evidence to show they exist. They have been searching for 20 years now and nothing. And I bet your kids a thousand euros each that you will never see one before you die.
Then there is the aliens of evolutionary theory. If one believes the absurdity – that life arose from inorganic matter – then alien fairy-tale land has a place in such psyches, but it will stay there never in reality.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 30, 2008 10:59:23 GMT
The place of hell saintstephen, has never been defined so opinions are allowed. Here is my opinion written some time ago.
THE DOCTRINE OF GEOCENTRICISM.
Coming closer to earth, in the vast aetherial region, many of Aristotles intelligences lose that pureness and goodness and were thus known as ‘daemons’. Again we find an easy analogy with the Christian concept, as depicted in the Apocalypse, that of the fallen angels who were cast ‘down’ from heaven. Between the moon and the earth they gather until God casts them into their final place in hell prepared for them.
‘And that great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the devil and Satan, who leads astray the whole world; and he was cast down to the Earth and with him his angels were cast down.’ ---(Apoc. 16:9).
‘Hell’, according to mediaeval tradition, created by God for Satan and those who reject Him for whatever reason, from hatred to apathy, lies in the very centre of the earth, the furthest place from heaven. St Cardinal Robert Bellarmine wrote:
‘The last is natural reason. There is no doubt that it is indeed reasonable that the place of devils and wicked damned men should be as far as possible from the place where God, angels and blessed saints will be forever, the abode of the blessed (as our adversaries agree) in heaven, and no place further removed from heaven than the centre of the earth.’
In the first line of the Bible (Gen 1:1), God makes a distinction in the universe, calling heaven the firmament and its centre earth (Gen. 1:8). The Copernican or heliocentric proposal violates this concept by reversing this order. If the sun is the centre of our universe then it is the earth that resides in the heaven and not the other way around, as Cardinal Bellarmine once made clear.
‘And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe.’
With the advent of Copernicanism, hell became redundant. Once ‘science’ supposedly proved and demonstrated that the earth (with its hellish interior) was in fact flying around the sun that was in turn flying around a galaxy, which was in turn expanding outwards at tremendous speed, then the theological hell taught by the Catholic Church began to lose its credibility. And with hell went Satan, for the two are intrinsically linked, discredit one and you consign the other to the same myth.
TRADITIONAL PICTURE FROM OLD SUNDAY MISSAL
In the Name of Jesus let every knee bow of those that are in heaven (angels) on earth (man) and under the earth (devils) (Phil. 2:10)
Indeed such a notion is but an embarrassment to modern man, and not even the fact that science speculates the interior of the earth is one huge burning flaming mass has helped restore the traditional place of hell. To those who cringe at the idea of a moving sun, a fixed earth, Heaven, Hell and Purgatory as taught by the Catholic Church, they think now as fallen man. At the final judgement however, traditional theologians teach, all from ‘middle earth’ shall share in the knowledge of God’s infinite justice and mercy. This will include a fusion in us of all that God created for His Own Glory that must include a comprehension of the geocentric world. The Scriptures foretell that immediately thereafter - no matter where one deserves to go for all eternity – all shall sing the praises of God’s perfect judgement on us.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Oct 30, 2008 13:34:35 GMT
The prime error of atheism is the fact that they blindly ignore all evidence sitting on the tip of their nose. Maybe if you were to stop talking about the fact there is evidence there and instead discuss what that evidence is then you might be more helpful to them? Otherwise it sounds all a little elitest "I know what the evidence is, you dont, but i dont care to tell you" and you wonder why they do not see your point of view. Faith doesn't need evidence. I don't know how many times I told that here. However trough Faith, and consequently our practice of our faith, God is giving us evidences, called graces, of Its existence. To some of us, He even revealed Himself. He does that to person who want to believe. "ask and you shall received". Ask for faith, you shall received it. Atheists do not ask and refuse to believe. This is why no evidence is given to them.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 30, 2008 13:50:32 GMT
False. Two fundamental errors here which I hope I can correct.
I do ask. Thats why I am on this and many other christian and catholic forums.
Unlike the moderator here I do not just wish to have a forum of all my peers who agree with me no matter what. I actively seek out people who disagree with me so I can see their side and observe their evidence.
I am not sure what more asking I could do.
I would take your critisism if I was just wrapping my point of view in cotton wool and hidding away from people i disagree with like the moderator of this forum. As I said before I would be ashamed of myself if I were to act in this fashion.
As for refusing to believe, also false. I crumble always before the facts, figures and evidence. You have provided none nor have I seen any reason to think you have any to provide. If something is shown to be true, then it has been shown to be true. There is no refusing to believe it or pretending to believe it when you do not.
No one has, in my entire life of searching, deigned to provide me with one peice of supporting evidence for the claims being made. Not once. I do not know if this is because they have no evidence to provide (likely) or they are just holding on to it so no one can see (unlikely).
I do not just reject things provided to me out of hand like you suggest because I "refuse" to believe it. I would NEVER do that. If something is provided to me I will discuss at LENGTH if any why it is good or bad evidence.
Faith, to me, is just the art of deciding something is true without any evidence and believing it anyway. Alien abductees, Elvis searchers, Muslims, 9/11 inside job conspiracy theoriest... they all have faith like you do. Pray tell what gives you more credibility than them when you all have the exact same level of evidence to offer?
Also please remember it was not me the atheist who brought up evidence in this thread. Stephen mentioned it first, indicated that evidence exists and suggested we were ignoring it. So I ask again... WHAT evidence?
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 30, 2008 13:54:19 GMT
Faith doesn't need evidence. I don't know how many times I told that here. My honest question to you as a believer then is this: As a person of faith what do you think of people who use their faith to tell other people what to do. For example to tell people with no faith that they should be denied abortion rights because god puts the soul into the zygote at conception? Or to tell gay people their practises are immoral and should be made illegal because it is an abomination in the eyes of the lord? Now do not get me wrong, I have no problem and never will with people who stop themselves having abortions or being gay because of their own faith. This you will never find me arguing against. I want however to know what your opinion of those who try to control the law against OTHERS is based on ONLY their faith. After all, nothing has been shown to be harmful about two consenting gay adults in love, fostering children or getting civil marriages. On what grounds do people of faith think they can deny these things?
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 31, 2008 0:49:05 GMT
Quote a couple of dozen encyclicals to her guillaume.
|
|
|
Post by redmond on Oct 31, 2008 11:32:07 GMT
Well saintstephen, I shall not enter that one, for the fires of hell are different to the fires of earth in that they burn without destroying the body so are of a preternatural nature. Better to keep out of such questions and try to avoid getting to find out the real answers.
On that matter I once attended a debate in which I mentioned the fire of hell. Afterwards a good intelligent man came up to me and said 'surely you do not believe in a real fire, that is metaphor.' I asked him if he accepted FATIMA and its messages. He said yes he did. Well then I said ' did Our Lady deceive the children when showing them the fires of hell under the ground.' He walked away muttering 'I will not listen to anyone who accuses Our Lady of deceit'. That is how twisted catholics can get things.
|
|