The Tempest | Jesus Alien Christ

Jesus Alien Christ

Read this. Make sure you get to page two.

Hokay.

So a guy who works for Team Catholicism came out and said it's cool to believe in aliens. Not that any particular Team Catholicism proclaimations have much effect on me any more... somewhere between calling out the Muslims and a priest trying to explain to me how homosexuality and kleptomania were inherently the same thing, I stopped getting the memos (and on that note, grats to California). Now, unlike my demi-hero Joss Whedon, I very much believe in the "sky bully", an afterlife, a meaning to "it all", etc. Heck, I even still think Catholicism is a heckuva foundation-- which is why you'll find my religion beliefs listed on the book of faces as "Hare Club for Men" (I hope somebody out there gets that reference before they go to Wikipedia).

SooOOooo I see this news all over the place and think, "Good! Some open-mindedness!" (And, honestly, reading that article, there are a LOT of statements in this press release I LOVE. This guy is smarter on the uptake than many officials...) But then I get to this gem, which not all the reports have been covering:

"There could be (other beings) who remained in full friendship with their creator"

And suddenly my knee-jerk reaction kicks in.

Aliens didn't commit original sin, eh?

I could be wrong on this, but I think the majority of people reading this blog ascribe to some theory of evolution. They understand differences between micro and macro evolution, they get the reasons that particular fossil links are hard to find (because it happens very fast), and so on. So, I'm not talking to any frakking fundamentalists, unless Riley's mum is lurking over his shoulder. Which means we're all on the same page: the Bible is a good book. Divine inspiration? Sure! Amazing message? Absolutely! Literal? Fack no. Heck, there's so much contradiction between New & Old Testaments, as well as the fact that the books that made the cut were chosen by just another bunch of humans, not unlike the bunch of humans that wrote the flawed books... if we are to believe that any free will was involved, we must believe there are some problems.

Not that creation as told in the Bible is a problem, if you're functioning above the intelligence of a properly educated junior high student. It's a represenational story. It says, in short, "God created everything and it was sweet." Then the second item, "He also created us to be like Him, but the sweetness got messed up via choice." I don't think that some evil woman tricked my species into falling out of grace. It's a very anti-feminist world view, in my opinion. I'm more inclined to believe that myself and everyone around me was made very much like God. When the first post-monkeys started to make choices that went against survival but instead towards emotion and intellect, they occasionally made choices, because of their freedom, that were anti-God. And the beauty of that is that we really CAN choose (thank you, Lord).

So, why does the concept of guilt-free aliens bother me? For me, it assumes a full human-centric view. Jesus came to save us, and nobody else. Paul had to write letters about this viewpoint problem from day one. God came to save us all. Now, I'll give you He might have repeated the performance elsewhere, sure. I have no problems if you want to tell me about the planet Claxxon Five, and their Savior who was laser-beamed to death to save them from sin.

BUT if you say there are intelligent beings out there, and they got a pass, there's something wrong there. Either they are not intelligent beings, which means they work purely on survival, OR God made someone literally "better" than us. Our He/She Lord allegedly made angels with will and reneged on the enterprise after one of them became a real asshole. If extra-terrestrials got a pass, though, that would mean they were fully intelligent, and for some reason, they got the full story. They realized, fully, that God was awesome, and so they just never-ever screwed up.

Maybe this doesn't bother you. But think about this. If you're a functioning Christian, you believe that when you die, if your ducks were in a row, you go to Heaven. And there, you don't "lose free will" but you "gain eternal life". So, you choose, forever, to play for team Holy. If you're making said informed decision, that means you're closer with the big fella than any angel was, because when they had choice and strong communication lines they still had some people cut out. So, while it's been theologically exemplified for sometime that humans > angels, we would now have a universal view that other > human. I'm assuming both "other" and "human" would be technically made in God's image, so... it makes no sense. Unless God made intelligent beings NOT in Her own image that were in better Communion with Her. Which is kind of a self-defeating view for anyone in the Vatican to be taking on, eh?

Now, I know this isn't some religious decree that says, "THIS IS HOW THE CHURCH BELIEVES" or even the Pope speaking on the matter. But it is someone in Catholicism, in a position of authority, speaking publically and saying something that is, to me, fairly damning. Maybe Mr. Vatican Science Guy doesn't want the aliens to have free will. Or maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill.

My rant is done. What's your opinion, gang?

Leave a comment

I'd say the mountain out of a mole-hill.

I hate to play captain "careful how you interpret", but that's always the case with philosophy. How you decide what a word means in a context makes a HUGE difference. I guess I didn't take the same thought away the first time out.

But, it is an interesting thought. However, based on the church doctrine, we are to assume that mortal beings are born with original sin. However, I think that this guy was just excited and started rambling off ideas. I'd check the vatican site at some point to see if there is a more official release.

I must say, though, that I liked the article. Mostly because it highlited how Catholics are cool with this 'science' thing, and we don't discredit the unknown (aliens in this case) offhand simply because we don't yet understand it.

I didn't like the mention of Galileo.. that was a political argument, not a scientific one. I wish people would get that right. Heck, around that time St. Alber the Great and Thomas Acquinas were writing about how faith and reason are perfectly compatible. ugh.

Back to the point. I would say that, given the doctrine, and given that this is one guy and there hasn't been a major theological discussion, I'm holding judgement on the "mortal beings that are better than humans". Because! If you accept the original sin theology (that mortals with free will are tainted by something at birth and must be baptized to reconcile that) then, by definition, if an alien is mortal it should follow the same rules.

I could also talk at length about the resolution b/w the old and new testament (read up on Paul, and the gospels. there's alot of goood stuff in there about the new law. Especially in Paul, he talks quite a bit about how Jesus brought about a new way of thinking about it.) but I won't. I may post my views on that at some point.

On a final note (since you mentioned cali). I'm ok with gay people sharing incomes and stuff like that, because that's essentially all a government sanctioned 'marriage' is. Hopefully it will let them do hospital visitation stuff. The point is, we should respect and love all people (this is what the new testament was telling us).

I am confused, however, how the supreme court can overturn a voter decision. I was under the impression that, as a democracy, if the voters choose something that it should then be ok.

Other notes: lol @ "her"

Okay, it was weird that my first response had nothing in the text. Let me try again.

Okay, copying and pasting from Word is the problem. Sorry.

"Heck, there's so much contradiction between New & Old Testaments, as well as the fact that the books that made the cut were chosen by just another bunch of humnans, not unlike the bunch of humans that wrote the flawed books... if we are to believe that any free will was involved, we must believe there are some problems."

I am reading your post and thinking you are obviously a humorous guy. However, while claiming the Bible is contradictory, you broach your topic from fractured self-contradictory presuppositions and authorities, it is difficult to know where to begin interacting with such thinking. You are "literally" all over the place. I think that in order for you to make such grand and general statements (like the Bible contradicts itself and yet it is a good message that was divinely inspired and all those annoying complements that people don't really mean...blah blah blah) you really ought to have your ducks in a row. ;-)

If you don't mind, I'd like to discuss some of the points raised in your post, perhaps even on a presuppositional level. Just so you know, I am one of those that is not on the same page with you. I do believe in a historical viewpoint of Genesis 1-11. In fact, I believe all of Genesis is historical.

God Bless

Howard

I dunno if you're Howard or the Film Critic from that site (http://www.how2fish.blogspot.com/) in your first reply... if you're the Howard guy, I'm gonna just kind of put it out there that this may not be a blog you can cause any good at.
I mean, this morning's homophobic rant at Salt & Light which held this gem: "The appeal to European countries by many today is a strange one. A few years ago, I heard that Europe is going to a 4-day workweek. America is falling behind. We should be like them. This is just more of the Left

**RILEY, FIX THE TEMPEST. IT'S REPLY THING IS BROKE**

Where was I?
..."This is just more of the Left

APPARENTLY a copied apostrophe just ends a damn post. FRUSTRATING. :P

"Left's anti-American sentiment. It is simply arrogant. Since when is doing less work and becoming socialistic a good thing?"

Ugh. America IS behind. Our dollar is falling behind. Our crime rates continue to be high. The education in our country falls further and further back. Add in the fact that doing less work IS a good thing (we might have time to enjoy the life God has given us; heck, we might even be able to spend some more time in praise). To call this view Anti-American is very... British. Sorry, Mrs. Thatcher, I will be questioning the government. As for socialism; when Christ came to this earth, his economic practices definitely had some leanings... hint: it wasn't towards capitalism. So let Caesar have his, and stop calling the left lazy.

But, if you are said Film Critic;
The books are flawed. I mean, the fact that they are sexist is clear. Additionally, if there is anything that twelve years of Catholic education taught me, it's that the books are NOT historical. That wasn't what they were intended for! I mean, WHY would Christ need a historical account of his time on earth?

I wish I could more specifically get my "ducks in a row" for you, sir, but sadly I always kind of thought my apologetics class was more aimed at non-believers and particular heresies, so I've forgotten some of the more minute points that my junior-in-high-school self assumed everyone knew; it wasn't until four years later I realized there was still a large group on this earth who think that the sun revolves around us, so my failing comes from sheltering.

But the people that this blog was more directed at are by and large (excuse the term, gang) "recovering" Catholics. People with many years in the Catholic school system who are now dealing with their faith outside of the safety zone. It's had different effects on us; my stance has probably become more hands-off than others. The whole gang, Catholic or otherwise, posts whatever they please here, but I'd say we try to keep on-topic in a discussion.

SO if you want to respond to this post (or any here), please... just go to the topic. Whereas my article was "Lew Perkins made a deal to get us in the Orange Bowl" your response is "Todd Reesing is an overrated quarterback". Yes, my article talked up Todd, but ya missed the point. Even if we disagree on a couple hundred points as to faith and worship, we still could have had a conversation based on whether or not aliens have fallen from grace that would have been interesting. Care to try again?

Just for clarification. You are debating Howard, not filmcritic. Filmcritic is an occasional contributor to Howard's Blog and rarely debates anything in his forum. I'm more of an e-mail guy:)

Incidentally, if I were to begin a thread in response to the ideas within the post I would still begin with the nature and authority of Scripture. Either they are not authoritative and have nothing to tell us regarding God's work in creation that is helpful in an ultimate sense (or even about aliens) or it is Divine and authoritative and the meta-narrative of the whole would lead us toward a faithful way to answer the questions raised in this post. But - it is apparent that such a subject is not one you meant to instigate and so I'll reserve such discussion for our already established e-mail exchange. Oh! I saw Narnia last night. It was so corny I was physically uncomfortable. I leave you know to work on the actually review!

Well, my initial response was meant to just say that the presuppositions were literally all over the place. One sentence, the Bible is good, the next the Bible is contradictory. So how is the Bible good or divinely inspired? We just don't know.

I took the original post to be questioning traditional beliefs about our creation would be opposed to aliens or at least the Bible might be opposed to aliens. It seems to me that people who wrote the Bible believed in angels. That would at least be extra terrestrial in some sense.

The issue I'd like to get at is our ultimate authority for approaching the world around us. I believe God's Word is sufficient to explain to us and give us an interpretational grid. Anyway...

You mentioned my homophobic rant. I was actually interacting with someone who was defending a position from an irrational point of view. I more than demonstrated that Bidstrup never makes a positive case for his position. He doesn't even try. He uses the exact same methodology atheists use when they argue against the Bible.

You did mention that America is falling behind. Although it never proves Bidstrup's argument, you raise an important question. Who controls education? You're not seriously going to argue the "right" are you?

As for the work issue, I hope you are jesting. Of course it is a great thing when we don't have to work. By nature I am pretty lazy. Nevertheless, Europe is in serious trouble if they do not remain competitive in the market place.

As for your assumption that flat earthers are the equivalent to those who reject evolution (I am assuming you are arguing for the macro kind) I reject your non-argument.

If the Bible is not the Word of God and sufficient in itself to explain man and the creation, then your theory will just be one of the many that come and go. Fads do come and go with man-made ideas about the creation because they reject the only true source of knowledge.

As the text says, "[In Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

I'd like to ask this though, why does having aliens without some kind of original sin bother you? Why does the idea that free will entail creatures MUST sin? I didn't follow your argumentation there.

God Bless

Howard

I think I replied to a lot of off topic items at www.how2fish.blogspot.com

But yes; aliens without original sin does bother me. How do we know a creature has free will, unless it does something against it's nature? Aliens that haven't "fallen" confuses the crap out of me. If you can get past some of my left-leanings, and the fact we're not of the same... faith foundation, ya might re-read the initial post. Even if we cross out all the arguments that go against a straight fundamentalist view, I *THINK* there's still a standing discussion that leans towards a very big "?!?!" on the issue.

And, again, I do REALLY like the original thesis of the guy. 'Cause there totally are aliens.

"I WANT TO BELIEVE"

You say you want to believe in Aliens. I just hope they don't have big ships with big lasers.

As for free-will, did Jesus have a free-will? Could He have sinned? If not, is His Will really free?

Also, Believe me when I say I am not a Fundamentalist in the popular sense you may be thinking of. I am a Baptist of the Reformed Camp.

God Bless

Howard

I for one welcome our without original sin robot overlords.

Big

You can't do "

heart. lol

Well, apparently there are some problems with the comments system. Does anyone know exactly what they are at this point?

I'm just using a basic installation of Lifetype, so maybe there's a fix or something.

Nolan I now have a degree in Catholic Theology, I will be responding soon, after discussing this with my advisor.

Oooooo. There's a response that sounds exciting!

Ok Nolan, so as far as this issue goes, it seems that you interprit "it is even possible that some of these aliens may not have lost friendship with their creator" as meaning, if there are aliens then they have no free will because they never sinned, which is a pretty crazy deduction in my opinion.

Lets first look at the original state of man, before the fall. Scientifically you can prove that all people came from two original parents, whether or not their names were Adam and Eve is irrelevent, the bottom line is at some point they screwed up and we inhearited fallen nature from them. The powers that make man different from animals are:

Intellect- the ability to know things, self-awareness, etc.

Will- the ability to choose.

That being said. In the original state of man, before the fall again, our intellect always knew what was correct or good and our will was designed to always choose what was correct or good. Then man fell, because of temptation and did something completely contrary to his nature. And that gives us our current state where our intellect is clouded and our will doesn't always want to choose correctly, and we have concupiscense (the desire for sin).

Now that wasn't in the original plan for God, God didn't want that but we made that choice, now if there are beings on other planets, then it would not necessarily follow that they would have made that same choice or a choice against their nature, even if they were free to do so. First off, there is no order of visible creation higher than us, now could there be beings equal to us in terms of having a full intellect and free will, yes there could be, but does it completely necessarily follow that because of that they would have to sin, no, because they're free. Meaning they could, but they also may not, and in the infinate realm of possibilities, it's possible they might not have.

On a side note. There is nothing in the Catholic Church that is opposed to the theory of evolution, I subscribe to it myself, that is as long as you recognise that God is intricately involved in every step no matter how big or small, and that at some point you recognise that God infused a rational human soul into our original parents.

I know based on what we were taught at Colgan it's tempting to say the bible is just fantastic stories and there's no fact to it historically at all, especially in genesis and revelation. But be careful how you interprit that, there is a lot of historical accuracy within both books.

TrackBack URI

Gaming (5)
General (18)
Politics (3)
Rants (19)
Movie Films (2)
Fives (1)
Comics (3)
Sports (1)
Gadgets (1)
Supporting the Man (3)
A Salute to Your Mother (2)
Religion (1)

General

Jesus Alien Christ

search

Categories

archives

my Links

Syndicate