Extraterrestrial Life

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217859' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:06 PM']The reason I don't think that the Mayan comparison is useful is that Christians have always believed that all humanity had eternal souls. Even if we found ET, we'd still have to ask if they had an eternal soul.[/quote]Why do Christians believe all humanity have eternal souls? Are eternal souls granted only to the direct physical genetic descendents of Adam and Eve? Isn't that kinda letting theology define scientific reality like Christian Literalists who think the Earth was created in 7 days and there is no evolution? Doesn't that also mean Cain and Able had to be incestuous with their sisters?
Or maybe God can work on a greater scale and at a point of His choosing, He started to bestow souls to His creatures at a point of their evolution of His choosing. Or maybe the story of Adam and Eve eating the 'apple' was more metaphorical, not literal. It wasn't so much the physical eating of the apple, but the spiritual choice of deciding to defy God when both were perfect and had never sinned? Hmmmm...

[desertwoman]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1217774' date='Mar 23 2007, 04:33 PM']Ch. 7 of "Case for a creator" has an interesting angle here.

my fundi mom thinks that aliens are really demons and when we look and find them they are actually looking for earth to come get us[/quote]


That's what my dad says. Anything that is not of Earth is an alien, Angels, Demons, God, and of course born again believers.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Why do Christians believe all humanity have eternal souls?[/quote]Because the Bible says so. Do you believe that human beings have eternal souls?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Are eternal souls granted only to the direct physical genetic descendents of Adam and Eve?[/quote]That would make us a human family. Are you suggesting that humanity doesn't share a common ancestor?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Isn't that kinda letting theology define scientific reality like Christian Literalists who think the Earth was created in 7 days and there is no evolution?[/quote]Even St. Augustine looks at the 7 days as metaphorical. I don't believe in the "young earth" theory. At the same time, I don't think that we got eternal souls as a result of evolution.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Doesn't that also mean Cain and Able had to be incestuous with their sisters?[/quote]Yep.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Or maybe God can work on a greater scale and at a point of His choosing, He started to bestow souls to His creatures at a point of their evolution of His choosing.[/quote]So, you don't think that eternal souls are the mere product of evolution either?
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217869' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:20 PM']Or maybe the story of Adam and Eve eating the 'apple' was more metaphorical, not literal. It wasn't so much the physical eating of the apple, but the spiritual choice of deciding to defy God when both were perfect and had never sinned? Hmmmm...[/quote]Agreed. But, the important part of this story is: if humanity isn't all from the same parents, then Original Sin would only be inherited by a subset of humanity. That's why the Church maintains that we have a single set of "first parents".

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217899' date='Mar 23 2007, 07:46 PM']Because the Bible says so. Do you believe that human beings have eternal souls?[/quote]I'd like for you to point out the specific Scriptures that say that. I happen to believe humans have eternal souls from philosophical foundations of Christianity.

[quote]That would make us a human family. Are you suggesting that humanity doesn't share a common ancestor?[/quote]I do not believe that the 'human' family requires sharing of common DNA or ancestors. I am suggesting that humanity may not share 1 set of common parents, Adam and Eve. I happen to believe that God's grace and love that grants humans souls, intelligence, and free will, as well as other traits make us family.

[quote]Even St. Augustine looks at the 7 days as metaphorical. I don't believe in the "young earth" theory. At the same time, I don't think that we got eternal souls as a result of evolution.[/quote] Good for Auggie. I believe the bestowing of souls is solely the descretion of God and He has not necessarily restricted Himself to attaching souls to a certain arrangement of DNA.

[quote]Yep. [/quote]Quite a moral and scientific conundrum you've put yourself into. So God chose to utilize INCEST which seems to be a violation of Natual Law and thus, immoral, to temporarily be moral? I can't quite grasp the theological logic in that. And then how did we get the vast range of races in such a short biological period?

[quote]So, you don't think that eternal souls are the mere product of evolution either?[/quote]Not at all, not even dependent. God may have used evolution as a convenient tool to time when He wanted to grant souls.

[quote]Agreed. But, the important part of this story is: if humanity isn't all from the same parents, then Original Sin would only be inherited by a subset of humanity. That's why the Church maintains that we have a single set of "first parents".[/quote]I hope you didn't get a nose bleed when you realized you 'may' have agreed with a heretic. As far as the 'first parents', does that mean they have to be sperm and egg donor. God is our Father, yet He did not donate His DNA to the cause. Cannot A&E be parents in a spiritual sense. Imagine a group of Neanderthals living in a small society, not unlike a Lion Pride. At a certain point, God chose to bestow two persons, Adam and Eve, with souls at the moment of their conception. They were born and were graced with spiritual awareness, a conscience, and free will. They were more intellectually advanced than the rest. It was them that introduced awareness of God to the others who could have either had an awakening at God's discretion, or their offspring were born with souls AFTER A&E. They all lived in 'Eden', a place of innocence. A&E's choice to choose against what they knew was good and corrupt the innocence of their society would be the fall and introduce corruption to the souless and souled...

[Mateo el Feo]

Let me break out the responses...
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']Quite a moral and scientific conundrum you've put yourself into. So God chose to utilize INCEST which seems to be a violation of Natual Law and thus, immoral, to temporarily be moral? I can't quite grasp the theological logic in that.[/quote]According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, incest is only a violation of Natural Law in the first degree (parent-child). Further degrees of separation (e.g. siblings, etc) would be against Ecclesial Law. Quoting:[quote]It is certain that this crime has its distinctive enormity from the prohibition of the natural law, where there is question of the first degree in the direct line, for instance, between parents and children. For the other degrees it is probable that recourse must be had to the [u]ecclesiastical law[/u] which invalidates marriage within those limits.[/quote]Feel free to present contradictory evidence, if you would like.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']And then how did we get the vast range of races in such a short biological period?[/quote]What is the "short biological period" that you are assuming?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']I'd like for you to point out the specific Scriptures that say that. I happen to believe humans have eternal souls from philosophical foundations of Christianity.[/quote]Both Our Lord and Saint Paul confronted the Sadducees when they denied the resurrection of the dead. Quoting Luke 20:37-38:[quote]But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."[/quote]There are just so many references to eternal life (or damnation), that I'm having a hard time understanding why you think that the Bible doesn't teach about eternal souls.
[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']I do not believe that the 'human' family requires sharing of common DNA or ancestors. I am suggesting that humanity may not share 1 set of common parents, Adam and Eve. I happen to believe that God's grace and love that grants humans souls, intelligence, and free will, as well as other traits make us family.[/quote]That's fine. I'm just sharing with you how this related to Christian theology. If you don't accept Christianity, then I suppose you can believe anything you would like.

[quote]Good for Auggie. I believe the bestowing of souls is solely the descretion of God and He has not necessarily restricted Himself to attaching souls to a certain arrangement of DNA.[/quote]Shall I answer, "good for you"? I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this. Are you trying to suggest that there are non-human beings with eternal souls? I guess it's a topic we could daydream about, but I don't think we can move beyond pure speculation.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']Not at all, not even dependent. God may have used evolution as a convenient tool to time when He wanted to grant souls.[/quote]I suppose so.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']I hope you didn't get a nose bleed when you realized you 'may' have agreed with a heretic.[/quote]Confused. My nose seems OK. Who's the heretic? (BTW, there's nothing wrong with agreeing with a heretic. We just can't agree with a heresy!)

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']As far as the 'first parents', does that mean they have to be sperm and egg donor. God is our Father, yet He did not donate His DNA to the cause. Cannot A&E be parents in a spiritual sense.[/quote]God is not our physical father. And we are physical children of A&E (i.e. biologically descended from them).

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217921' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:11 PM']Imagine a group of Neanderthals living in a small society, not unlike a Lion Pride. At a certain point, God chose to bestow two persons, Adam and Eve, with souls at the moment of their conception. They were born and were graced with spiritual awareness, a conscience, and free will. They were more intellectually advanced than the rest. It was them that introduced awareness of God to the others who could have either had an awakening at God's discretion, or their offspring were born with souls AFTER A&E. They all lived in 'Eden', a place of innocence. A&E's choice to choose against what they knew was good and corrupt the innocence of their society would be the fall and introduce corruption to the souless and souled...[/quote]I don't know if I'm ready to sign up to every detail of your hypothetical; but I think I could agree with the general story, and that it is compatible with Christian Theology. That's my layman's view...subject to correction, of course.

Edited March 24, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217931' date='Mar 23 2007, 08:25 PM']Let me break out the responses...
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, incest is only a violation of Natural Law in the first degree (parent-child). Further degrees of separation (e.g. siblings, etc) would be against Ecclesial Law. Quoting:Feel free to present contradictory evidence, if you would like.
What is the "short biological period" that you are assuming?[/quote]All I can say about sibling incest is EWWW. I also don't think that the American Catholic Encyclopedia which merely reflects the current Roman Catholic Church opinion is the final say on Natural law. Since I'm not claiming to be a Roman Catholic, I don't feel compelled to place my will and intellect into submission the current whims about Science to the RC Church. There are genetic problems with in-breeding so scientifically, extensive inbreeding does not seem likely or probable without us all being hemopheliacs playing banjos on a bridge in Georgia.
A short biological period meaning the few thousand years that Literalists who believe any evolution is impossible. But let's give it some more time. I have long lost reference to the body of work, but I've read papers that extrapolated current rates of successful biological mutation backwards and came up with a time frame that well exceeded the life of our solar system. This not only blew apart the theory of pure evolution, but gave creedence to a directed evolution. Granted, there exists the possibility that DNA did reach an evolutionary point that decreased the rate of mutation. But an increased rate of mutation still ran into the problem of working with a large enough number of the species to survive the percentage of mutations that 'fail' and are not better equipped to survive.
Given what we currently know about Genetics and the human genome and the recessive traits that can quickly appear in a few generations that render a species weak and undermines the adaptablility, an even greater amount of time is needed to start with a very small gene pool that must survive inbreeding long enough to then create a gene pool large enough to then mutate sufficiently into successful races. Quite a stretch, don't you think?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217942' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:06 PM']Shall I answer, "good for you"? I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this. Are you trying to suggest that there are non-human beings with eternal souls? I guess it's a topic we could daydream about, but I don't think we can move beyond pure speculation.[/quote]Well, that is the crux of our disagreement. I do not believe God has to limit His will and love to only us humans. I don't see evidence of conscience or souls in the animals around us, here on earth, but I don't feel that human's need for a Religion that depends on exclusivity to relate to the God of All Creation, is necessarily accurate. I rate it right up there with the Church clergy condemning Copernicus and his ilk, who theorized the Earth traveling around the Sun contradicting the Church's understanding of God and humanity's realationship with Him. Just as I am spiritually your brother because God claims us as His children, I am sibling to each and every other sentient being (human or otherwise) God has deemed fit (in His perfect judgement) as Creator of All, to bestow as soul and conscience to. I reject the hubris that the Roman Catholic Church knows all there is to know about God. God surely ensures we can all know what we NEED to know (and sometimes are graced with more), but humans can barely fathom being aware of EVERYTHING on our pitiful planet, much less fathom God who is aware, intenional and on-line in realtime with every nuance of Existence.
I'd much rather believe God has got things figured out and that humanity will be able to wrap their mind around the magnitude of His Love if we do encounter sentinent persons from elsewhere. It shouldn't be much more of a theological problem than finding people in the New World here.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217944' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:15 PM']All I can say about sibling incest is EWWW. I also don't think that the American Catholic Encyclopedia which merely reflects the current Roman Catholic Church opinion is the final say on Natural law. Since I'm not claiming to be a Roman Catholic, I don't feel compelled to place my will and intellect into submission the current whims about Science to the RC Church. There are genetic problems with in-breeding so scientifically, extensive inbreeding does not seem likely or probable without us all being hemopheliacs playing banjos on a bridge in Georgia.[/quote]Is this an appeal to reason? Anyway, I promise you that the Catholic Encyclopedia wasn't the first to figure out that Adam and Eve's children would have to marry each other to "get the species going." But, even after it got going, Abraham took Sarah, his half-sister as his wife. It was Mosaic Law (i.e. Leviticus) which was first to prohibit sibling incest. So this whole "Natural Law" vs. "Ecclesiatical Law" thing (as it relates to incest) predates Christianity.

Thank you for acknowledging that you can't speak for the Catholic Church. I would appreciate, though, if you did not misrepresent Catholic Teachings as whimsical.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217944' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:15 PM']A short biological period meaning the few thousand years that Literalists who believe any evolution is impossible. But let's give it some more time. I have long lost reference to the body of work, but I've read papers that extrapolated current rates of successful biological mutation backwards and came up with a time frame that well exceeded the life of our solar system. This not only blew apart the theory of pure evolution, but gave creedence to a directed evolution.[/quote]OK, so that's "Intelligent Design"?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1217963' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:56 PM']Is this an appeal to reason? Anyway, I promise you that the Catholic Encyclopedia wasn't the first to figure out that Adam and Eve's children would have to marry each other to "get the species going." But, even after it got going, Abraham took Sarah, his half-sister as his wife. It was Mosaic Law (i.e. Leviticus) which was first to prohibit sibling incest. So this whole "Natural Law" vs. "Ecclesiatical Law" thing (as it relates to incest) predates Christianity.

Thank you for acknowledging that you can't speak for the Catholic Church. I would appreciate, though, if you did not misrepresent Catholic Teachings as whimsical.

OK, so that's "Intelligent Design"?[/quote]You're welcome. Feel free to be appreciative, but please don't demand that I not choose to consider certain opinions of the Roman Catholic Church as being merely the perponderance of current opinion. I'm not about to ask the RC Church to give me their opinion whether or not Global Warming is really an immediate crisis or not.

I don't know if I would characterize what I read as 'Intelligent Design', but it was more supportive of 'Directed Evolution'. I dabbled in theortical math concepts and was beyond my current pay grade. It discussed correlations with mathematical functions that seemingly creates random numbers but graphing would create recognizable designs such as fractals. Again, the problems lie with the amount of varience that would still lie within the logical prameters of the fractal giving the possible iterations that may occur. Please forgive my inablility to fully understand or explain it all since I'm not well educated and do the best I can with a high school diploma.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217955' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:30 PM']Well, that is the crux of our disagreement. I do not believe God has to limit His will and love to only us humans.[/quote]You are free to believe that God loves little green men that no one has seen. No one is stopping you.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217955' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:30 PM']I don't see evidence of conscience or souls in the animals around us, here on earth,[/quote]You don't? All animals and every living thing has a soul, an "animating principle". It's just not an eternal soul.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217955' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:30 PM']but I don't feel that human's need for a Religion that depends on exclusivity to relate to the God of All Creation, is necessarily accurate.[/quote]Then why do you hold that all non-human life on earth doesn't get eternal life?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217955' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:30 PM']I rate it right up there with the Church clergy condemning Copernicus and his ilk, who theorized the Earth traveling around the Sun contradicting the Church's understanding of God and humanity's realationship with Him.[/quote]Copernicus was a Catholic priest who dedicated his work "On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres" to Pope Paul III, who supported Copernicus and his research. Maybe you're thinking of Galileo?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217955' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:30 PM']Just as I am spiritually your brother because God claims us as His children, I am sibling to each and every other sentient being (human or otherwise) God has deemed fit (in His perfect judgement) as Creator of All, to bestow as soul and conscience to.[/quote]When you speak of non-human sentient beings, which ones exactly are you referring to? The little green ones?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217955' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:30 PM']I reject the hubris that the Roman Catholic Church knows all there is to know about God.[/quote]Kinda goes against the fact that the Catholic Church teaching that God's nature is a mystery that cannot be fully understood.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217955' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:30 PM']God surely ensures we can all know what we NEED to know (and sometimes are graced with more), but humans can barely fathom being aware of EVERYTHING on our pitiful planet, much less fathom God who is aware, intenional and on-line in realtime with every nuance of Existence.[/quote]I'm getting dizzy. Did you say that God is online?

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217955' date='Mar 23 2007, 09:30 PM']I'd much rather believe God has got things figured out and that humanity will be able to wrap their mind around the magnitude of His Love if we do encounter sentinent persons from elsewhere. It shouldn't be much more of a theological problem than finding people in the New World here. [/quote]Both Christians and modern science argues that "New World" humanity derived from the same origin as "Old World" humanity. This is quite a contrast to the little green men, with whom we share no common ancestor.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217970' date='Mar 23 2007, 10:11 PM']You're welcome. Feel free to be appreciative, but please don't demand that I not choose to consider certain opinions of the Roman Catholic Church as being merely the perponderance of current opinion.[/quote]Ummm...I think I got lost in your double-negative. Anyway, I demonstrated that the teaching has been held as a constant teaching; it's not just the "preponderance" of current opinion, any more than the Ten Commandments are "current opinion". I understand that you reject this belief; but you used the term "whim" to describe this particular Catholic teaching, which doesn't jive with reality.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217970' date='Mar 23 2007, 10:11 PM']I don't know if I would characterize what I read as 'Intelligent Design', but it was more supportive of 'Directed Evolution'.[/quote]I don't really know what distinction you are making between I.D. and "Directed Evolution".

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1217970' date='Mar 23 2007, 10:11 PM']I dabbled in theortical math concepts and was beyond my current pay grade. It discussed correlations with mathematical functions that seemingly creates random numbers but graphing would create recognizable designs such as fractals. Again, the problems lie with the amount of varience that would still lie within the logical prameters of the fractal giving the possible iterations that may occur. Please forgive my inablility to fully understand or explain it all since I'm not well educated and do the best I can with a high school diploma. [/quote]Is there a link that you have handy?

[TruthSeeker777]

For those who like to learn more about ALIENS
Here's a good Christian site:
[url="http://echoesofenoch.com"]Alien info.[/url]

[KnightofChrist]

Hasn't France released top-secret info on UFO's recently? I couldn't sworn it was on the Drudgereport, now I can not find it...

[Urib2007]

[color="#000000"][size=3]French UFO fever crashes website[/size]
[/color]
[color="#8B0000"]By Emma Jane Kirby
BBC News, Paris[/color]

[color="#000000"]France's national space agency has opened its UFO files to the public by launching a website which documents reported sightings over five decades.

So many people have already tried to look at the files that it has become impossible to access the site.

France is the first country to open up fully its UFO files to the public.

Although other countries including the UK collect data on UFOs, files can be requested only on a case-by-case basis under the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, thanks to a small team of space agency researchers who call themselves the Office for the Study of Unidentified Aerospace Phenomena, the French will be able to access some 10,000 documents about UFOs, including photographs, police reports and videos sent in by witnesses.

The team offers explanations for some of the sightings - for example when 1,000 people reported seeing flashing lights in the sky one November night 17 years ago, the researchers were able to prove it had been a rocket fragment falling back into the earth's atmosphere.

But only about 9% of France's UFO cases have ever been fully explained, the group says.

And of the 1,600 cases registered since 1954, nearly a quarter are known as Category D - meaning that in spite of good data and witnesses, the mysterious sightings remain inexplicable.

The online archives will be updated whenever new cases are reported.[/color]