Godlike aliens...

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I need help understanding religion. Believers are welcome here.

Here's the question:

If an advanced alien race just happened to contact a faithful individual (you) and offered a choice:

1. Allow you to "save" the world and all it's people with free energy and food.
2. Allow you (or someone that you choose) to identify the "unworthy" that would be removed from the planet Earth to a different habitable planet and then apply #1 to all the people remaining.
3. Aliens go back to where they came from without doing anything else.

Which would you choose and why?




posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


#1. Short of playing judge, jury, and executioner with the inhabitants of Earth, I would at least ask that they be better equipped for dealing with their problems.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

InverseLookingGlass
I need help understanding religion. Believers are welcome here.

Here's the question:

If an advanced alien race just happened to contact a faithful individual (you) and offered a choice:

1. Allow you to "save" the world and all it's people with free energy and food.
2. Allow you (or someone that you choose) to identify the "unworthy" that would be removed from the planet Earth to a different habitable planet and then apply #1 to all the people remaining.
3. Aliens go back to where they came from without doing anything else.

Which would you choose and why?


I would go with #1. Unlimited energy and food would automatically wipe out the "unworthy". With nothing to hold humanity hostage for and nothing to manipulate people with, there would be no war profiteers or interests in keeping people poor.

There would still be those who would try to strong-arm it but they would be vastly outnumbered and with no bargaining chips to keep people at bay.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
#2.
However, the only person I would send to a different planet is myself.
Then everybody else gets the benefits of #1



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
#4... Kill it and grill it!

2nd line...



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Truly, you hypothesize a deep thought in the form of a question.
The answer should be given just as much fathom.

SnF
edit on 30-10-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 



2. Allow you (or someone that you choose) to identify the "unworthy" that would be removed from the planet Earth to a different habitable planet and then apply #1 to all the people remaining.


You must have been reading my mind from about 10 years ago. I asked for something similar when I "saw" the state of the world.

The "Unworthy" as you put it, in my opinion, have already decided that "they' are the chosen ones. I think the only thing wrong with their summation is what promised land belongs to them. Let them be Gods of their own red planet, and see how they fair.......



posted on Oct, 31 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   

InverseLookingGlass
I need help understanding religion. Believers are welcome here.

Here's the question:

If an advanced alien race just happened to contact a faithful individual (you) and offered a choice:

1. Allow you to "save" the world and all it's people with free energy and food.
2. Allow you (or someone that you choose) to identify the "unworthy" that would be removed from the planet Earth to a different habitable planet and then apply #1 to all the people remaining.
3. Aliens go back to where they came from without doing anything else.

Which would you choose and why?


Maybe the godlike beings were already given the choice, and that's
why the world is the way that it is right now.

KPB



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Tell it to go home without doing anything.

#1: you remove the process of labor from the equation. If human beings never have to earn their living, then they cannot fully appreciate anything they possess. Part of the value of a thing is determined by the effort we put into attaining. If you give us free energy and free food then all of our further advancements in science and agriculture become moot, and the efforts of millions of people across the globe become trivial and unimportant.

#2: how do you determine who is, or is not, worthy? If you picked a known religious figure, like, say, the Pope, then you can be sure that every atheist, Satanist, Hindu, Buddhist, and non-Catholic would be lined up for removal/execution. Likewise if you picked the Dalai Lama, then everybody who practices a Chinese folk-religion, or some other proponent of keeping Buddhists from attaining full human rights, would be discarded. If you picked a politician, then their inborn racism, sexism, ageism, and more would color their choices. Human beings are, inherently, segregationists. We all do it: you, me, the posters above and below me. All of us. So no one could actually pick and choose who deserves to live, or die.

Which leave us with #3: E.T. go home.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Here is an interesting thread I made about Aliens and it is interesting what some religious people think of them.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh and number one for sure, then we would put our energy's into the thirst for knowledge.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 


I disagree with you on point one, we would have more time and better resources to further our knowledge of the universe, money would vanish and instead of people working for money/goods they would work for nothing more than the advancement of themselves and the human race.
It may take a generation to forget the old ways but it would happen.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
# 2.

However, I don't think you should include #1 with #2. By doing that you are just removing #1 as a choice really since it is included with #2. That or make up another choice not included with another.



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Wandering Scribe
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass
 


Tell it to go home without doing anything.

#1: you remove the process of labor from the equation. If human beings never have to earn their living, then they cannot fully appreciate anything they possess. Part of the value of a thing is determined by the effort we put into attaining. If you give us free energy and free food then all of our further advancements in science and agriculture become moot, and the efforts of millions of people across the globe become trivial and unimportant.

#2: how do you determine who is, or is not, worthy? If you picked a known religious figure, like, say, the Pope, then you can be sure that every atheist, Satanist, Hindu, Buddhist, and non-Catholic would be lined up for removal/execution. Likewise if you picked the Dalai Lama, then everybody who practices a Chinese folk-religion, or some other proponent of keeping Buddhists from attaining full human rights, would be discarded. If you picked a politician, then their inborn racism, sexism, ageism, and more would color their choices. Human beings are, inherently, segregationists. We all do it: you, me, the posters above and below me. All of us. So no one could actually pick and choose who deserves to live, or die.

Which leave us with #3: E.T. go home.

~ Wandering Scribe


Well put and I agree.

You cannot give someone enlightenment.
Evolution is not a gift but something earned.
The path to heaven is a rocky narrow road.




posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Free energy would halt the advancement of technology. The technological age is based off of discovering better ways to manage our energy consumption.

Consider Halogen lights, as opposed to LED lights. The latter is an advancement, meant to conserve energy, and increase illumination. If energy were free, there would be no desire to ever perfect the light-bulb, as the idea of "wasting energy/heat" would never cross the mind of human beings.

If you want another example, take the computer. If energy were free, then the effort to invent new microchips, more energy-efficient processors, and eco-friendly batteries would not have been undertaken, as the free energy provided by the alien/god would have erased the need for those things in our minds.

Then, when you halt the progress of science, you also stunt our knowledge of the Universe. Without the effort=reward system which motivates most human beings today, we would never have invented the satellite, or sent men to the moon, or compiled a sampling of human culture to send beyond our solar system on Voyager.

The pursuit of knowledge is pointless if there is no application of what you learn. Free energy removes the necessity of application, and therefore destroys all forward momentum.

Unless you're approaching knowledge as a spiritual Truth (capital T), in which case I could only remind you that there is no universal Truth, which is the very reason why man seeks God, his purpose, and the meaning of it all through so many diverse channels, such as Buddhism, Christianity, the New Age, atheism, psychology, the Law of Attraction, Hinduism, humanism, existentialism, and so many more.

So, at the end of the day, #1 is still best: E.T. go home, and let us continue to earn our stripes.

~ Wandering Scribe

edit on 4/11/13 by Wandering Scribe because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Wandering Scribe

#1: you remove the process of labor from the equation. If human beings never have to earn their living, then they cannot fully appreciate anything they possess. Part of the value of a thing is determined by the effort we put into attaining. If you give us free energy and free food then all of our further advancements in science and agriculture become moot, and the efforts of millions of people across the globe become trivial and unimportant.


We are already currently in a situation like this although in just a slightly different way. The main difference really being who is controlling the "Hand outs of free stuff" and to whom is getting that "Free Stuff".

I'm not so sure granting Free Energy is actually a safe or good idea actually but that is another topic. However, just free energy and food doesn't mean that "Working toward something" will just vanish completely. Having food and free energy would just set everyone into a position of not having to struggle for survival. You would then be allowed to grow to whatever potential you choose.


#2: how do you determine who is, or is not, worthy? If you picked a known religious figure, like, say, the Pope, then you can be sure that every atheist, Satanist, Hindu, Buddhist, and non-Catholic would be lined up for removal/execution. Likewise if you picked the Dalai Lama, then everybody who practices a Chinese folk-religion, or some other proponent of keeping Buddhists from attaining full human rights, would be discarded. If you picked a politician, then their inborn racism, sexism, ageism, and more would color their choices. Human beings are, inherently, segregationists. We all do it: you, me, the posters above and below me. All of us. So no one could actually pick and choose who deserves to live, or die.


Once again, we already have this situation now but instead of exile to a planet we call it Prison or worse. I understand your position here, but I think it's a bit unrealistic to some degree. Or do you also think that we should also remove all laws governing people now so that nobody is in a position of authority over anyone else??

FYI I also believe deeply that this is how it is supposed to be, complete enlightenment for all. But I have serious doubts that our species is anywhere near capable of it.


Which leave us with #3: E.T. go home.


So you don't think there needs to be changes in the here and now??? Or are you just implying that we do need change, but we should be doing it without the help of some supernatural/extraterestrial outside help??



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mOjOm
 


Concerning free energy and free food...

Removing the conspiratorial elements, I'm simply looking at the psychological motivations behind human activity. Part of our motivation comes from reward, compliments, and how our image changes in the eyes of those around us. Pride, ego, confidence, self-esteem: whatever you choose to call it—and whether you believe it is "good" or "bad"—we all strive off of praise, accomplishment, and reward. When you remove the necessity to earn something, you cut off our connection to the morale boost that attaining it brings. Giving free energy and free food to the whole planet would remove two extremely basic motivators: self-sustenance, and our desire to create.

If you turn away from the psychology of the situation though, another very big problem also arises.

15% of the American work-force are farmers. If you suddenly give everyone free food, then 15% of American workers suddenly have no jobs. Similarly, about 5% of the American workforce are engineers, and 395,000 people are technicians; both fields that deal with energy, technology, and the advancement of both. If free energy and free food were suddenly introduced into the equation, nearly a quarter of Americans would no longer have a job.

Even the idea that the farmers, produce-sellers, electricians, engineers, and technicians could all just devote their energies to a different field is an unsound solution, as it doesn't take into account the average age of farmers, their education level, skill-set, or that most engineers and technicians spend a good deal of their formative years in colleges and universities learning their trade. The same way that a seamstress cannot replace an electrician, neither can an electrician or a farmer suddenly drop all they've learned and be a medical surgeon.

Free food and free energy would cripple America's economy alone, without even looking at the economy and labor force of the rest of the world.

 


Concerning option # 2...

It is wrong to think that whomever is selected to decide who is "worthy" and "unworthy" would not let their personal biases dictate their decision. As I pointed out already:

A right-wing Conservative politician would banish all Democratic, Liberal, and non-right-wing Conservatives as "unworthy" because their political persuasions disagree with his/her own. Imagine if somebody from the Tea Party were elected.

Putting a religious figure in charge, like the Pope, the Dalai Lama, or a High Priest/ess would result in faiths which disagree with their own, punish their adherents, or have an "unworthy" philosophy being exiled. Consider how much violence already inhabits our world because of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, and so on. Given the power to vanquish all opposition, someone from the Joy of Satan ministries would not even bat an eye before declaring it. Same with the likes of Fred Phelps, or the Dalai Lama, whose caste once enslaved those of the country where they lived.

It is human nature to segregate ourselves. Spiritually, politically, philosophically, ethnically, nationally, even based on things as insignificant as what sports team we root for. No human could be trusted to determine for us who is, or is not, worthy of being a part of the human population, who is beyond redemption, and who is "good" or "evil".

Such discrimination only gets worse when you apply an extraterrestrial, or divine element to the equation. Our religious books are full of examples of one god demanding the wholesale slaughter of the adherents/idols of another. And, almost universally, when we, as a species, have discovered a people whom we deemed "savage" or "primitive" it has unanimously resulted in the superior race committing genocide on the inferior people.

In this case we would be the Native Americans to an alien Christopher Columbus.

 


Option # 3: go home and let us solve our own problems collectively, as a still-growing species.


~ Wandering Scribe

edit on 5/11/13 by Wandering Scribe because: spelling error



new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join