http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/world/europe/14iht-vat.4.12885393.html?_r=0
"How can we exclude that life has developed elsewhere," he said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, published in its Tuesday-Wednesday edition. The large number of galaxies with their own planets makes this possible, he noted.
Asked if he was referring to beings similar to humans or even more evolved than humans, he said: "Certainly, in a universe this big you can't exclude this hypothesis."
This part is the most ridiculous.
As if sheer numbers makes spontaneous generation of life any more likely!
In this part, he is certainly thinking along the lines of atheist, Darwinist scientists -- because this is their precise argument! Put enough monkeys on enough typewriters, and eventually you'll have The Iliad.
The old line from the atheist blockbuster "Contact": "If we are alone, it would be an awful waste of space."
He even uses the phrase "life has developed elsewhere" though later on he brings God into it.
But even if you assume he's talking about God having created these aliens, it's still a silly statement. As if God would be any more, or less, likely to create another race on another planet, based on sheer numbers of planets or size of the universe!
Understand what I'm getting at -- what specifically is crazy about this?
It's as if this Vatican Chief Astronomer believes in Theistic Evolution.
But a very messed-up version of Theistic Evolution -- where life "develops" and God doesn't personally create each species -- even when you're talking about a species "more developed" than man.
Did anyone else catch this?
YO.
The followers of the devil just can't wait to take away from God
some aspect of His creative power,
to make created things, themselves, into some kind of gods.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator who is blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans i. 25)
I.e., we've known for thousands of years that this day would come,
so it shouldn't be any surprise to us.
"Behold I have told it to you, beforehand" (Matt. xxiv. 25).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/world/europe/14iht-vat.4.12885393.html?_r=0
Vatican astronomer cites possibility of extraterrestrial 'brothers'
Twitter
Linkedin
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Share
VATICAN CITY — The Vatican's chief astronomer says there is no conflict between believing in God and in the possibility of extraterrestrial "brothers" perhaps more evolved than humans.
The problem starts with the first sentence. This seems to me to be a fallout of the now-famous Francis quip, "I believe in a God but not in a Catholic God." BTW, that was not something he dreamed up on the fly, but it's been smouldering in his sem-subconscious for many years, and it's a theme he picked up from liberal Modernists among his Jesuit buddies long, long ago. It should have been something that would have DISqualified him for the papacy but instead it got him elected. The mystery of iniquity is now worldwide, in the open, and in-your-face.
"In my opinion this possibility exists," said the Reverend José Gabriel Funes, head of the Vatican Observatory and a scientific adviser to Pope Benedict XVI, referring to life on other planets.
It's just his opinion. But if it were more than his opinion, he would have some evidence for it, and since it's nothing more than his opinion, he therefore must not have any evidence for it. But of course, he can't have any evidence for it because there ISN'T ANY EVIDENCE FOR IT.
[Question]:
"How can we exclude that life has developed elsewhere," he said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, published in its Tuesday-Wednesday edition. The large number of galaxies with their own planets makes this possible, he noted.
[Answer]: How can we exclude that life has developed elsewhere, you ask? We can exclude it by way of recognizing that life has not developed here, that's how we can exclude it. Any more questions?
Note: The large number of galaxies has nothing to do with the possibility of life "developing," because we have no evidence of life developing anywhere on earth, and we are right here in the midst of it, and always have been. The only thing that has 'developed' has been the corrupted thinking of fallen man to presume to find lies in regards to God's own revealed truth, and based on the real lies, of Modernist man's corrupted thinking, they have come to the point where many many multitudes of nothing can somehow add up to something. As poor of a model as mathematics is, even in poor mathematics, nothing times a bazillion is still nothing.
Asked if he was referring to beings similar to humans or even more evolved than humans, he said: "Certainly, in a universe this big you can't exclude this hypothesis."
When you begin with the Big Lie of evolution, there are all kinds of ways you can go wrong with it. What he is implying here is,
"Certainly, when you presume the Big Lie of evolution in a universe this big (but maybe not as big as the Big Lie itself), you can't exclude a lying hypothesis like this one."
But to get that, you have to look at what he says with actual truth in mind.
But remember, this is the New York Times, so forget about having the objective truth, here.
In the interview headlined, "The extraterrestrial is my brother," he said he saw no conflict between belief in such beings and faith in God.
Again, do not forget the context: this is in regards to the Newchurch false doctrine trial-ballooned by Francis a few terrible months ago, "I believe in God but not in a Catholic God." So if the faith he's talking about is not one that believes in a Catholic God, then it believes in a false 'God' -- and as such, it is a false faith, and consequently, he doesn't see any conflict between the false god of his false faith and a belief in "such beings" as an "extraterrestrial [that] is my brother."
Remember, too, that Mormons believe that satan and Jesus Christ are brothers, and they just had a family dispute, is all. These things can be reconciled.
"Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures on earth, there can be other beings, even intelligent, created by God. This is not in contrast with our faith because we can't put limits on God's creative freedom," he said.
As St. Pius X well warned us, Modernists mix truth and error, alternatively. While it is true that, "Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures on earth, there can be other beings, even intelligent, created by God," the problem with this is, that those other intelligent beings created by God are called ANGELS, and there are about 1/3rd of them that are FALLEN ANGELS. And we human beings are very easily fooled into thinking that a manifestation to us of a fallen angel is actually a good angel. But we would be wrong, because it's really a devil. That's a problem.
Furthermore, "This is not in contrast with our faith because we can't put limits on God's creative freedom," unless, of course, that means that we can go so far as to think that God would do or has done anything that contradicts what God has revealed to us. God did create angels, and they do exist. But these clowns are talking about something else, not about angels.
[Question]:
"Why can't we speak of a 'brother extraterrestrial'? It would still be part of creation."
Answer: We can't speak of a 'brother extraterrestrial' because we have been given the revelation of God which says that Christ came to redeem all of mankind, who are the sons of Adam. The so-called 'extraterrestrials' to whom you refer would not be sons of Adam. We can't speak of God's 'creation' in any way that contradicts God's revelation to us. God created the angels and He created man. One third of the angels sinned and were sent to hell, and then Adam sinned after which death came into the world and now we are all subject to this death, even if it would be culminating with our eternal damnation among the devils in hell; something we should strive to PREVENT, not encourage to happen, like it would if we were to gullibly believe what Fr. J.G. Funes tells us here, and elsewhere.
Why doesn't the Reverend José Gabriel Funes mention that?
Oh, right: it doesn't match up with his agenda.
Sorry, I forgot how important his agenda is.
Shame on me.
Since it doesn't match up with his agenda, his agenda is a Big Fat Lie, like evolution is.
Funes, who runs the observatory that is based south of Rome and in Arizona, held out the possibility that the human race might actually be the "lost sheep" of the universe.
It's not just a possibility, it is the truth. All of humanity are 'lost sheep' and we're all in the universe. So, we are the lost sheep of the universe. That's why the Church is here, to find us and bring us back to the flock. But the Church doesn't do that by dishing out nonsense like this from Fr. Funes.
There could be other beings "who remained in full friendship with their creator," he said
Every time I hear about someone who had an encounter with an "alien" from outer space, where the "alien" blasphemed God, Jesus Christ, the Church and Our Lady, it doesn't take me more than a quarter second to see where this is all headed. Nor has there been ANY SINGLE REPORT from anyone, ever, who has met up with any aliens that are willing to pay attention to the teachings of the Church.
This garbage-speech of Fr. Funes implies that if any of us were to meet such an "other being who remains in full friendship with his creator," any erstwhile wondering we may have had that perhaps we should evangelize to them or offer them Holy Baptism is crushed by Fr. Funes who holds out a hope that these blaspheming creatures who have no interest in the Truth of God have somehow remained free of original sin ("remained in full friendship with their creator") and therefore in no need of Holy Baptism.
After all that, your observation, Matthew -- that this creepy theology proffered by Fr. Funes implies a sort of theistic evolution that is rather a species of deist theistic evolution, whereby God set the universe into motion and then ran away, to watch how it 'develops' on its own, as if it's his entertainment, kind of like visitors to the Zoo look at the exhibits, or placid viewers of Pay-Per-View watch their favorite TV programs, or spectators at the Colosseum watched the Christians being covered with tar and set on fire for torches at night which illuminated the other Christians as they were eaten alive by hungry lions -- is a good observation. Thank you for posting it!
.
.
What is meant by a 'rational' creature?
:idea:
I think I finally get it!
The idea of ETs as unfallen is heretical because the fall [affected] all material creation. Is that the very simple fact that I forgot?
I appreciate your desire to get to the end of the topic. But it could well be that you haven't 'forgotten' anything, because if you have never heard it before, you wouldn't have anything to forget!
These 2 'Vatican astronomers' might be dressed up as 'religious' but they sure don't sound like religious when they speak. That much is a scandal.
Scripture and Tradition hold that the sin of Adam affected the whole world. By 'world' it has been continuously believed that what is on earth constitutes the whole of God's creation in the universe. Thus, the term "lithosphere" in the science of a more sane age out of which we just emerged like a baby chick out of a dinosaur egg or whatever. (Evolution would have us believe such an absurdity is somehow believable.) For 'ETs' to come from outside this lithosphere, their being subject to our moral order and to the revelation of God to us, who have always been INSIDE this lithosphere, is a topic of theological discussion that is perhaps beyond the scope of this forum. The reason I say that is no CI member has answered any of my questions, posted above (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30789&min=15#p4).
If we can't swing a bat, we won't be making any base hits, and then we'll never make it to first base, let alone home plate. (Baseball season just opened.)
Maria Catherine,
I think re-reading this portion of Neil's post will help.
"We have in general four categories of created living beings: man, angels, animals and plants."
What category would these hypothetical creatures fall into?
Sarah
It's encouraging to see that someone actually read my linked post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=30789&min=15#p4), and thought about it.
Maybe it has too much detail.
Maybe it asks too many questions, or maybe the one to start with is the last question:
What is meant by a 'rational' creature?
Note: This cannot overlook the bedrock principle that God created the universe along with everything in it. Therefore, if these so-called ETs are in it, they must have been created by God. As a creation of God, they would have to be characterized or classifiable into one of the four categories of being, unless they would constitute a new 5th column (sorry),,,,,,,,,,, 5th category of being.
The capability of rational creatures, to do certain things that non-rational creatures cannot do, is the thing that these 'Vatican astronomers' are not talking about. It makes me wonder if they have come up with some new set of principles or some alternative foundation for their so-called theology.
"We have in general four categories of created living beings: man, angels, animals and plants."
What is it about them (ETs) that would make them a rational creature? What faculty or faculties would they require to qualify as 'rational'?
.