It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What will happen to Christianity when we finally confirm ET?

page: 12
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
As far as ET life and Christianity goes, I'm sure that would be a very interesting and, at least for me, fun time for the church, but I see no reason for it to undermine Christian faith.


I even remember this question being already discussed before. Like Francis jokingly said he would gladly baptize an alien who asked, or someone else I don't remember saying maybe alien civilization have their own Messiah/Christ.


Basically, as you said, it's fun to think about, and there is nothing in that possibility that would contradict either Christian faith or even what is in the Bible (given you are not a fundamentalist).
edit on 18-3-2015 by Develo because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Develo

originally posted by: StalkerSolent
As far as ET life and Christianity goes, I'm sure that would be a very interesting and, at least for me, fun time for the church, but I see no reason for it to undermine Christian faith.


I even remember this question being already discussed before. Like Francis jokingly said he would gladly baptize an alien who asked, or someone else I don't remember saying maybe alien civilization have their own Messiah/Christ.


Basically, as you said, it's fun to think about, and there is nothing in that possibility that would contradict either Christian faith or even what is in the Bible (given you are not a fundamentalist).


Even if you interpret the Bible really literally, you have to assume certain things to rule out ET life. In the long run, I doubt that the problem of ET salvation would be any more difficult than the problem of Gentile salvation that preoccupied the early Christians. But it's hard to cross that bridge before we come to it (and I doubt we will.)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369

People who claim to have "met" god usually describe it as a personal experience of a non-dual state. So basically what they mean is that god is the equivalent of a universal consciousness.


I'm not sure you could substantiate such a claim, the vague scriptures these religions are based on lead to a plethora of interpretations.


I wasn't talking about scriptures. I was talking about modern testimonies from living people who claimed to have a mystical experience.

I'm not even partial to Christian faith in particular. When I first started to explore the topic of theism and spirituality, I read from all traditions and religions, in a comparative way, to find the similarities rather than the cultural differences.

What I found is that you don't have to read the Bible or the Torah to get testimonies about god.

There is no shortage of modern "witnesses" to share their experience. And it's even better to discuss with them since they are alive and we understand their cultural background better.

We can even measure what happens in their brain when they experience what they call "the divine" or "the sacred".



If you truly want to explore the concept of "god", of theism, of transcendence, in order to understand better what religions are and what scriptures really talk about, you have to do it seriously and not simply based on your opinion about religious people.

That you mention scriptures to discuss the concept of god is not only short-sighted, it's also a fallacy.

Scriptures are a consequence of the emergence of the sacred. Scriptures are not the cause of it.


Humans started to experience the sacred way before religions and scriptures. We can even partly explain from a neurological point of view how we are hard-wired to experience this "sacred", this transcending reality.



Only when you get rid of your preconceptions, like "god is the dude who created the universe like a stone mason would, and who created humans out of nowhere", only then you can honestly study the concept of god.


Plenty of scientists and philosophers did the same, and many come to the conclusion that a "Spinozan god" is the closest to a universal definition of god that would reconcile most beliefs.

And conveniently, it's also what mystics of all religions are saying about the god they experience during their meditations.



Now if you consider god MUST be some sort of "conscious being" who created the world (what we tend to do automatically because of anthropomorphism) of course science will tend to prove you wrong.

But if you follow the logic of what the mystics are sharing through their testimonies, you will see god is more like a force, a potential waiting to be unleashed. If it is truly universal and "intelligent" then it would be impossible for our minds to understand its intelligence or motivation.



I don't believe in the god of fundamentalism.


On the other hand, I recon that all spiritualities and religions share a common ancestry, which is the experience of the divine, a transcending vision of reality strong enough to deeply transform the individual, making him less selfish and more open to others.

I also recon this universe, this life seems to be happening not because of pure chance, but following a certain drive, a certain direction which is to fulfill a potential and increase its complexity always more.

Some people consider consciousness is an accident of nature.

Other like me consider it was the goal all along, and that the universe always contained in itself the template for it, like DNA contains the template for a full conscious being. And that template/potential universal consciousness/drive for more complexity, I call it god, because it seems to be what most spiritualities and religions are trying to express but always fail to do it clearly since an infinite reality cannot be bound by finite words, so words will only pervert and distort the absolute complexity of what mystics have encountered in their inner journeys.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
The watchers fell and giants were born, what happens to people when they get abducted by these aliens and what is taken from them?

Sperm and egg samples, DNA and what could they be using these samples for?

Giants done.

A new race of humans claiming to be our creators, next?



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Develo

ATS is a good sample to describe what Americans believe.

What percent of ATS members are American?
What percent of those members are Catholic, Protestant, etc?

It’s not that common for members to have their actual location specified; I imagine it would be a challenge collecting that info. There is more reason to think the Christians here come from all over the Globe and from various denominations considering it is indeed an international community. All I know is that I see Christians here with a frequency much greater than 10% take Genesis as a literal account.


But certainly not to extrapolate to the whole world.

Right. However its been my experience online, through numerous sites, and in person through numerous people, that I have heard Genesis taken as a literal account a significant amount of the time. YMMV.


Then let say, 100% of these protestants are fundamentalists, which is obviously completely untrue.

If not all protestants are necessarily fundamentalist on Genesis, then why are all Catholics allegorical towards it? Only works that way when it supports your argument? I think the honest answer here is that you’re right not all protestants would be fundies, just as not all catholics would not be fundies.

Regardless it doesn’t matter where the Protestants are located geographically if your point is about what the Christian view is in general. Assuming 100% of Protestants are fundamentalists we are clearly looking at a figure not only not less than 10%, but a figure quite a bit larger than 10%.


Again if we are to say said protestant isn’t necessarily a literalist towards Genesis, then what reason is there to say a catholic couldn't be a literalist.

Also your very generous and hugely exaggerated figure of 220 million protestants/fundamentalists:

Appears to be 800+ million.


your last posts have lacked critical judgement and mathematical rigor.

Sorry to disappoint you.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

You're missing the part where he (correctly, to the best of my knowledge) identified fundamentalism as an *American* tradition. There's not 800 million Protestants in the United States. (There's not even that many people in the United States.)

Has Pew done research on how many fundamentalists are worldwide?



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Not a think will happen. When we went to the moon, did that mean there was no God? No, just a bigger GOD. When ET makes himself known, do you not thing they will believe in a greater being also?



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Thanks, it's exactly what I said.

I quoted a bit explaining Christian fundamentalism started at the end of the 19th century in the states. It spread to anglo-saxon countries and moden evangelical missions mainly.


The exegesis regarding genesis has traditionally be that it was an allegory, this can be dated back to Church fathers. It is the most common view among Christians worldwide.
edit on 18-3-2015 by Develo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Allow me a bad wordplay and let me say I rarely see so much bad faith.


You don't understand why other Christians like Catholics or Orthodox don't read genesis literally? It's easy though. These traditions still have hierarchies to help them with theological matters. And the hierarchy says this:


Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.



And in this very case they trust it because most people can recognize wisdom when they see it.

edit on 18-3-2015 by Develo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   


What will happen to Christianity when we finally confirm ET?


One thing I surely know about this question now is...

You don't have to worry about the Christians, you have to worry about biased closed minded racist who will freak out over ET and cause the destruction of our world.

Because ET is more advanced if they can make it here...



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Who said it is incompatible?

In the beginning God created the heavens AND the earth. Throughout the Bible the word heavens is actually used to indicate the universe at large, the heaven in which God resides and the immediate ozone layer and atmosphere.

And since the next part focuses on life on Earth, it never discludes any other part of the universe. The Bible does say "worlds".

But you would have to really have read the Bible to know that. And BTW, the word day actually means eon.

I see no incompatibility nor controversy. The Bible actually talks about other worlds.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AinElohim



What will happen to Christianity when we finally confirm ET?


One thing I surely know about this question now is...

You don't have to worry about the Christians, you have to worry about biased closed minded racist who will freak out over ET and cause the destruction of our world.

Because ET is more advanced if they can make it here...


Yeah, well why do they keep crashing?

Seems to me that if they were really more advanced, they'd learn not to crash on our planet.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


And another question Akra


Why do you think the government or academia or science should confirm what we already know? Do you need the government to confirm that you are you?

Wait, yes you do, because you have a social security number. But what is the deal with people waiting for something known to be "confirmed"? I have never been alien abducted, but I have seen what can be classified as a UFO, I just don't know where it was from. But I didn't need the government, a scientist or professor to confirm it for me.

Canada's government has already confirmed it.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

No time to read through the entire thread just now, so apologies if someone else has already posted this information, but the great C. S. Lewis wrote an excellent essay on this topic called, "Will We Lose God In Outer Space?". The related question, which Lewis touches upon, is whether the Fall of Man is local or part of a universal phenomenon. I lean toward the universal based on Paul's writing in Romans 8:18-25---

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

c22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

However, Lewis' essay considers both possibilities. Very good read for anyone willing to sink their teeth into it.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
So where does it say that there is no other life out in the " heavens " in the bible? Didn't see that part mentioned in Genesis...

The existence of E.Ts does not disprove Christianity...Nice try bud....Huge logic failure....

Please try again...

a reply to: Akragon




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: wyrmboy12

IF you say so...

As I've already stated... IF God created man in HIS image...

what happens when we find something that doesn't look like man?

Besides I didn't say it would disprove Christianity in any case... Only disprove the lack of logic behind fundamentalist theology...




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: williamjpellas
a reply to: WarminIndy

No time to read through the entire thread just now, so apologies if someone else has already posted this information, but the great C. S. Lewis wrote an excellent essay on this topic called, "Will We Lose God In Outer Space?". The related question, which Lewis touches upon, is whether the Fall of Man is local or part of a universal phenomenon. I lean toward the universal based on Paul's writing in Romans 8:18-25---

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

c22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

However, Lewis' essay considers both possibilities. Very good read for anyone willing to sink their teeth into it.


That was a very good point.

I think most critics of the Bible have never actually read it and rely too much on misinformation about the Bible.

You know, the Bible actually says that heavens declare His majesty, and now astronomers have discovered that the universe makes sounds and the Earth itself hums along at Bb, 12 octaves below human hearing.

That statement seemed allegorical, but now it has been found to be literal


If the ancients knew the universe actually made sounds, then they were more attune than we are today.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


But you would have to really have read the Bible to know that


lets not go there alright...

Grow up a bit...




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: wyrmboy12

IF you say so...

As I've already stated... IF God created man in HIS image...

what happens when we find something that doesn't look like man?

Besides I didn't say it would disprove Christianity in any case... Only disprove the lack of logic behind fundamentalist theology...



Who says God didn't?

And you just said it yourself "God made MAN in His own image". Does that mean He could not have made the others look like whatever He wanted them to look like?

Geesh, you need to stop being so human-centric.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy


But you would have to really have read the Bible to know that


lets not go there alright...

Grow up a bit...



I recall you are the one who said that you only believe certain parts and only give credence to those parts you believe in. You may have read the rest, but here you still are asking silly questions that you should have known the answer to already.

That's why I wonder.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join