Slashdot Mirror
Vatican Astronomer Comments On Extraterrestrials
An anonymous reader writes "There's an Astrobiology.net interview up with a Vatican astronomer, Guy Consolmagno, who also curates one of the world's largest meteorite collections. On the possibility of a non-terrestrial lifeform, he says initially 'I don't know', followed by three scenarios. First, he argues: 'We find an intelligent civilization and there's no way in creation we can communicate with them because they're so alien to us. We can't talk to dolphins now. In which case, we'll never know.' Secondly, he suggests: 'We find the intelligent civilization. We can communicate.' As agents of free-will, the aliens are self-aware of good and evil, thus convertible to some terrestrial religion. Thirdly: 'We find a dozen civilizations out there, and a bunch of Jehovah's witnesses go up and convert them all.' The question of whether an alien civilization might convert Earth to their religion, or become a religion unto themselves, is left unconsidered. This compares to the many reasons people give for hosting a SETI@home client, including that ET contact would unite humanity, challenge religion, or all of the above."
As agents of free-will, the aliens are self-aware of good and evil, thus convertible to some terrestrial religion
Even if Aliens know the difference between right and wrong but they might not be able to understand the concept of god. Even if the did understand god I doubt you could convert a space faring race to any of our religions in their current form. It makes the earth too special and they'd probably wouldn't take kindly to that. I do suspect religion will transform in to a 'many games of chess' set-up. Adam and Eve was Earth's story. Kalcknor and voltak was Vulcan's story etc etc.
Simon
Even if any aliens were to have a concept of good and evil there's no reason why they would see things the way we do. Just look at how it is on Earth: there are people who genuinely believe it is 'good' to do things that many now believe are profoundly evil. Take the Spanish Inquisition, for example: they really believed that it was the right thing to torture suspects - give a sinner hell here, so they don't suffer so much in the next world.
In fact, I don't think there is anybody that considers himself 'evil', no matter what.
...what about religion?
Seriously, if some advanced race landed on Earth, at least some cult/faction/group would characterize them as gods. What I find interesting is the practical viewpoint of the Vatican astronomer; new scientific discovery does not eliminate the need for a God, it just redefines the boundaries between humanity and the Other.
I also think that a chance encounter with aliens would certainly polarize the creationists. Did God create the Earth in seven days? OK, what about Gamma Epsilon 7? The Catholic Church has had many, many faults, (hello, Galileo) but IMO the modern Church is much more accepting of scientific theories than, say, fundamentalist Christians.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The thought of "converting" aliens to our wacko religions never occurred to me either.
I'd tend to think any species smart enough to build an interstellar spacecraft wouldn't be dumb enough to strip it down for parts once they got here, just to sell to help buy Pat Robertson or the Pope another mansion.
(And, anyway, what kind of idiot species would convert to a religion that goes into detail about how they can't even exist?)
If anything, it'd be the aliens converting our idiots to their beliefs. Hell, they've got spaceships. Their god's dick is surely bigger than our god's dick.
He also seems to miss out the option whereby we atract the attention of "agents of free will" who have already discovered evil. Am I right in thinking that currently it's illegal to attempt to communicate with an ET without UN approval, or something? In case they wander over and rape our planet/enslave us all/demand McNeal.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
This shouldn't be considered funny...the things that are spoken of in the bible can almost all be done using the right level of technology in whatever field you can think of. It is completely possible that an alien prankster is responsible for everything the bible accounts for...and it is also just as likely that such a thing could happen anytime in the future. After all if you are worshiping a being that is a step above human life and knowledge...how can you say that the being you're worshiping isn't simply pulling the wool over your eyes with card tricks?
It's real simple...if any real god came down here today...do you really think the majority of the human population would believe anything he/she/it said? As it turns out the time to embed moral fibers into a society may have been thousands of years ago before technology became so abundent...if you want to avoid conflict with future species would you simply wipe them off the planet you find them on...or convert them to your way of thinking before they can think for theirselves?
There's already a lot of people who believe in Grey Aliens, but I haven't heard of people interpreting these Greys to be Christian angels or demons.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Just goes to show that religion isn't against science and vice versa. There's a wide-held misconception that science and religion are so conflicting with one another that you cannot believe in both areas of life.
There is the belief that science seemingly sets out to disprove the existence of a god-figure. For example, it is through science that the seemingly anti-religious evolutionary theory is 'proven' and the creationist theory is 'proven' wrong.
Then again, there are those who study science and astromony and actually come to believe in a god figure. It is claimed that many astronomers and scientists actually do believe in God because all their research leads them to believe that there must be a superior being, case in point Brother Guy Consolmagno. It's the philosophers who say "If you believe in God, you won't when you walk out of my lesson in an hour."
..religion eventually being the cause of even bloodier and more nasty wars?
We may think The Crusades and Nazi Germany had bad consequences - but when our fleet of orbital antimatter carpet bombers drops out of warp at the home planet of those cursed unconvertable Alpha Centauri aliens, the scale of destruction will be difficult for us to imagine now.
From the Vatican? This made me think it was going to be a religious commentary on the possibility of ETs. This is addressed very well in a book called "The Hercules Text", (kind of old).
The premise of the argument was, if ETs exist, there must be immortal ETs, if you subscribe to Roman Catholic religion. I.E. : The reason we are not immortal is that we failed the "test": we ate the apple!
Therefore, somewhere out there there must be people who passed it, or the test is "spurious".
Therefore there must be immortal aliens, or the test is invalid, and therefore the Redeemer is invalid.
That's just the argument in the book.
that's a logical fallacy.
Or a "straw man argument". Dolphins are not even aliens.
Whilst we are on the subject, this story has been shooting around the world; some very interesting infra-red footage shot by the Mexican Airforce shows...make up your own mind. The footage was shot by drug interdiction aircraft on patrol for smugglers.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Why? I don't follow this reasoning. After all, no one in the Americas shared any religions with people from Europe, but that doesn't imply that no European or Native American religion is true. Lack of agreement between alien cultures does not imply falsehood.
Shockwave Flash movies are the greatest thing to happen to non-sequitur humor since Japan.
C.S. Lewis covered this a while ago. He addressed most of the relevant religious questions pertaining to the existence of extraterrestrial life in a far more rigorous and interesting manner than this article could dream of. I highly recommend reading Out of the Silent Planet, if only for his excellent writing.
"I would give my right hand to be ambidextrous."
Looking at it from the point of view of someone who is a Christian, it is hard to see how Aliens would be like us. Either:
They've never screwed up like we did and had the 'Fall' - so they have no concept of good or evil - in which case I doubt any meeting would be allowed to occur. My other problem with this is that the Bible, and the world around us, suggests that creation has also been affected by our mistake. There's far too much in nature that "isn't right" as people say.
Or:
They have had their own equivalent of the fall, and are just like us, the kind of Aliens you don't want to meet (think we'd avoid war in that scenario?). Considering the unique role of Jesus Christ, this would also be unlikely to be allowed by God.
I guess there's a third scenario too. The Bible isn't particularly specific on where angels and demons are (though they do business on Earth already). It is possible that some supposed UFO or alien encounters are a result of this. It's not entirely impossible, especially considering the apocalyptic sections of the Bible, that as part of some end times scenario, people beleive that we have encountered aliens (with the reality being more sinister).
Personally, the distance to our nearest stars, which may not even support life, looks suspiciously like a "buffer zone".
I'm sure that to those who do not beleive in any of the Bible, or in God, or Jesus, this sounds like nonsense. Hopefully its interesting though, and won't be modded down simply by those disagreeing. Also it would be interesting the different opinion that other beleivers have, not necessarily agreeing I'm sure!
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
That's odd. I think a lot of the shit surrounding "Passion of the Christ" stemmed from the fact that Gibson rejected some of the Vatican's reforms. In particular, his splinter group of Catholisim ignores the reforms which absolved the Jewish people, collectivly, of culpability for Jesus's death.
Historically, there have been many pogroms and a lot of anti-sematism which stemmed from the notion that 'the Jews killed Jesus' and should collectivly be punished for it till they convert.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
This is quite timely, considering the reports of UFO's coming from Mexico as well as reported in Iran, although for me, one of the most intriguing cases happened in Belgium, over a decade ago. Slightly more on topic, I think that something he doesn't really touch upon here is what happens when two cultures of vastly differing technology meet; in nearly all (if not all) cases in history of such a collision, it is always the weaker culture that either perishes (is absorbed) or is greatly affected by the sudden influx of ideas and technoloy. If aliens do visit us, then their technology is obviously greatly superior to our own, and I can see similar things happening (we would begin to adopt their technology, which in addition to contact, would lead to massive culture change). Of course, some people would hate the aliens and vow to eradicate them, whilst others would look to them as gods themselves.....well, it's all conjecture, but it's interesting stuff!
The problem with good and evil is that they are open to interpretation.
During the colonisation of America the settlers considered Slave Labor good.
In Hitler's point of view he was doing a good thing.
The Al Qaida is fighting for what they believe is right.
Of course I know this is flame bait.
And I don't even agree with their point of views.
But fact of the matter is. It's culture that decides what's good and evil. So if we meet aliens, and they start invading us, and reeducating us. Who's to say they aren't doing it because they think they're doing the right thing.
Face it, you can't predict the outcome of a meeting with an alien race.
McCoy: Just once, I'd like to beam down on some planet and say. "Behold, for I am the arch angel Gabriel!"
Spock: I fail to see the humor in that doctor.
Something even more amusing would be the discovery of aliens that take offence to the fact we don't believe in their god and start blowing us up. Oh wait, that happens right here...
Actually, the early church hit this one. Jesus was god made jewish man. How are you going to impress a Roman with `god became a Jew' if he doesn't care about that small tribe on the edge of empire. There was a significant shift when they turned from a jewish messianic cult into a catholic one. This is the cause of all the bickerring about circumcision and so on -- the greek and roman worlds found snipping bits of their children or themselves barbaric.
So, one thing which might happen to the monotheistic religions on contact with an ET is that they mutate into a universallist outlook. The big question then being whether the history on Earth is unique -- eg did Jesus death save the Qxthipus of Raffita VII, was Mohamed the last ever prophet, or just the final prophet for earth?
However, all this is probably moot. The religions of Earth are so heavily rooted in human psychology that they are unlikely to have any point of application to an alien intelligence.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Just thinking.. suppose we were advanced enough to be able to travel between the stars and came across another civilisation who were just making it into space, what decides whether we make contact or not.
This is kind of a prime directive situation, where a major factor would probably be how religious that civilisation is. Somebody weighing this with us would probably think that religion has too much control and it would almost certainly mean war. They wouldn't want that so they back off and leave us to evolve.
It is anti-semetic to blame all Jews for all time for somthing that happened over 2000 years ago. It's even anti-semetic to blame all Jews when Jesus was alive. The Sanhedrin was a Roman puppet.
Should I say "The Christians were responsible for killing Jews during the Holocaust" because some Christians were involved in it. And should I conclude from this that all Christians for all time are murderers until they change their religion? The notion is absurd.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
You obviously haven't been reading Christian publications. It's a belief among many Christians, that "aliens" are fallen angels and/or demons. There are plenty of web sites, radio shows, and speeches given on the subject. The same things written about fallen angels thousands of years ago (kidnapping, cross-breeding, trading technology for access) is supposedly the same things the "aliens" are doing even now. If you beleive in both, it's an easy parallel to make.
There is no god and the aliens know it for sure and can prove it also
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
"Convertible to some form of terrestrial religion". Yeah right...
Forget about religion, how about cultural assimilation?
Read this exerpt from the Brookings report from 1960 comissioned from NASA about finding extraterrestrial life, it will make you think twice. Perhaps this is why the goverment is hiding the truth that "they" are already here. Oh and don't forget to see that Mexico video, just another iron in the fire so to speak.
--
Proposed Studies On The Implications Of
Peaceful Space Activities For Human Affairs
By
Brookings Institution, 1960
Report To The 87th Congress, Union Calendar 79
Report Number 242
For
National Aeronautics And Space Administration
The general public
1.As with other matters not central to day-to-day living, the
public, considered as a whole, is probably only selectively
attentive to and knowledgeable about space activities. The
relationship between the impact of events on indifferent or only
occasionally interested people and their attitudes and values is
but partly understood and needs further study.
2.It has been alleged that the "public" is optimistic about
space activities. If this is so and if the optimism is
widespread, the present support it generates for the space
program may not be lasting if the difficulties inherent in space
efforts have not been appreciated enough to make the failure of
specific projects understandable. The resulting disillusionment
may be a serious factor in reducing public support as space
efforts become more grandiose, the consequences of payoff more
exciting, and the losses from failure more dramatic. On the other
hand, this optimism, if it exists, may produce a state of mind
tolerant of failures. The factors affecting optimism, realism,
and tolerance of frustration need more study as an aid in
preparing for this situation. The roles of the promoter spokesman
and the mass media in encouraging expectations of great and
imminent accomplishments are integral to this problem area and
would benefit from research.
3.The conviction that space activities will broaden man's
horizons are presently based on the perspectives and special
interests of a relatively few people in western societies. The
claim may be justified, but there is need for research to assist
understanding of the conditions under which innovations broaden
or narrow perspectives in various cultures. For example,
sufficient emphasis on space as the proper expression of man's
highest aspirations may result in the evolution of a broadly
based belief that this is so. But whether or not this is likely
to be the case cannot now be decided in view of our limited
understanding of how new ideas disseminate through societies. If
and as horizons were broadened as a result of space activities,
other aspirations would compete with them for attention and
resources, and continuous study would be required to evaluate the
appropriate position of space in this competition.
4.Though intelligent or semi-intelligent life conceivably
exists elsewhere in our solar system, if intelligent
extraterrestrial life is discovered in the next twenty years, it
will very probably be by radio telescope from other solar
systems. Evidences of its existence might also be found in
artifacts left on the moon or other planets. The consequences for
attitudes and values are unpredictable, but would vary profoundly
in different cultures and between groups within complex
societies; a crucial factor would be the nature of the
communication between us and the other beings. Whether or not
earth would be inspired to an all-out space effort by such a
discovery is moot: societies sure of their own place in the
universe have disintegrated when confronted by a superior
society, and others have survived even though changed. Clearly,
the better we can come to understand the factors involved i
I think the common frame of reference is very important. With pets we tend to learn what they are after but it only works for the common things. We can tell the difference between them wanting out and them wanting food but maybe not between them wanting food and wanting water. For the pet, they may have a different frame of reference than we do but the position of their food and water dishes are close enough that we may not pick up a suttle difference in their message. They also may see the world much differentlly than we do. For example, my new pet is 3 mos old and is starting to learn that she's not allowed on the table however from her point of view, that only applies if shes jumping up on the table, not down to it. I think I have taught her not to jump on the table but in her mind, I may have taught her not to jump up from the kitchen chairs.
- Guy lives on some alien planet where he has introduced metalworking etc materials to some highly litteral-minded aliens (I forget their name) who create beautiful artifacts.
- Priest comes to convert them all to Christianity. ("They are all God's children")
- Guy disagrees and tries to stop him (by philosiphy).
- Aliens are converted and build a church.
- Aliens decide that the matter would best be decided by a miracle. With their annoying logic they choose to crucify the priest to see if he comes back to life.
- Guess what. He doesn't.
A moral of the story is: People are innocent before they commit murder, but not after....This story is a TROLL.
I am reminded of a story by Arthur C. Clarke. Two IBM programmers are brought out to Sri Lanka to work in a monastery at the top of a mountain. The monks believe that if all the nearly infinite names of God are recited, the universe will come to an end. Their job is to write a program that will be run on a mainframe at the monastery to try and generate all those names. Someone out there probably knows the name of this short story.
BTW, one of the posts near the top of this discussion is correct. The Roman Catholic Church (my flavor of Christianity) is now very much at ease with the results of all the scientific discoveries of the past few centuries. One of our fundamentalist friends is a "Young Earth Creationist". Sorry, but I gotta laugh when told that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth together. All the animals were vegetarians (even T-Rex) until Adam and Eve shared that apple/pomegranate. Huh?
Dear Fellow Slashdotters, most of the world's religions are fine with scientific discovery. The great "undiscovered country" out there is the focus of most religions. What are humans capable of when their mind, body and spirit are all completely aligned on their spritual "North Star"? What matters is not material things but things like love, hope, joy, justice and so on. Mother Teresa (already beatified, now awaiting canonization- Sainthood. Similar to a certification from Verisign finally completing for the tech-obsessed) spoke of the spiritual poverty of Americans as compared with the spiritual wealth of the poor of Calcutta. Religion does not need these routine bashings on Slashdot. I have found most of it is good for helping keep the neighbor's kids from trying to break into my house. Without it, I am certain that mere Earthly laws and law enforcement will leave us much poorer in every way. Since the tyranny of the ACLU and atheists was unleashed by the Warren Court, we have seen what happens when God is driven out of America at every turn. As a lifelong historian, I truly believe that America was better off when it wasn't trying to force religion out of the public sphere at every turn. I would be fine with seeing crosses, stars of David, crescents, and Buddha statues all over America. Let the government referee the occasional conflict instead of suppressing them unevenly which is the current game. Studying anything BUT our major legacy of faith, Christianity, is fine for public educational facilities now.(e.g. universities down to elementary shcools) The anti-Chrisitan crowd that has been extending its reach through government is totally fine with promoting every religion but Chrisitanity. The Founding Fathers wisely chose not to establish state religions, (unlike Europe where tax dollars go straight to state religions) but their separation of Church and State was trying to protect BOTH. The protection of the State should not come at the expense of one particular practice of faith. If it must be paid, it should be paid evenly by Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and so on. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Everyone has made a religious choice since exposure to religion is inescapable. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. -Rush
In principio erat Verbum.
the more alarming thing is that secularist revisionists have twisted history so as to claim that the Crusades were unprovoked. they were a reaction to the unprovoked maurading accross north africa (burning the library of alexandria), spain, and half of france.
there is much evidence that shows that the so called "golden age of spain" was concocted in the early 1900s as propoganda so the British people would not mind allieing with the Turks.
Then how do we train them to do little tricks at our whim?
One could argue that there is some form of communication going on there.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
The salvation by "faith not works" thing is a bit more complicated. One cannot discount the book of James (as Luther would have liked) which states that "faith without works is dead". However, I do not see the contradiction between that and Paul's words that faith alone is needed. If someone DOES have true faith in God who is goodness, then they *will* do good works. Or else what they have is not really faith.
The good works thing IS important, as "by their fruit you will know them" (Jesus describing how to know false prophets in the Gospel). Someone can't be going around professing faith in God and yet living without any attempt at good behaviour. The two aren't compatible. Now to those that do have faith, grace is given to help them obey the Lord.
Those who decry the do-gooders for in example, the Catholic church (preaching salvation by works) have missed the point. These people would not be doing such works were it not for their faith. I do subscribe to criticism of this position of preaching - it can confuse. Of course, so too can the most ardent "faith alone" preachers (profess faith and just sit back).
In conclusion, yes, it begins with faith. But true faith IS shown by the works of those who have that faith.
As James says, even the demons not only believe in the existence of God - but fear Him.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
our culture, by its very nature, would rather destroy (or attempt to) something then bow down to it.
That's not just our culture, that is human nature. Fear/Hatred of the unknown is ingrained in our very being, it does not necessarily derive from religion.
On another note something that wasn't mentioned: assuming there are aliens another possibility is that they would come with their own religons or perhaps even have distinct knowledge or proof of an afterlife.
People who make the argument that it is faith alone and NOT good works that saves rarely make clear exactly what they think is going on. Thus, here is my explanation:
TRUE SAVING FAITH ==IMPLIES==>>> GOOD WORKS
but
GOOD WORKS =XXX=DO NOT IMPLY=XXX=>> TRUE SAVING FAITH
i.e. Good Works are a NECESSARY but NOT a SUFFICIENT condition for the True Saving Faith that will get you into Heaven.
Put another way, if you really have the kind of true, saving faith that will get you into heaven, then you must necessarily be trying to perform good works. If you are not performing good works, then you do not really have true saving faith, no matter what you claim to profess.
This is why people who say, "I believe in the Lord, and surrender myself to him!" and yet who actually make livings from selling used lollipops stolen from babies are probably not actually saved. If they had true faith, they would be repelled from making such a living. Thus, they must not have true faith.
On the other hand, a woman or a man could be an upstanding moral being, and yet not have saving faith, and thus not be saved. I think that the reasoning behind this belief is that since God is perfect and we are not, even the smallest little evil is the most terrible thing that God has ever seen, and this pushes us away from him. Only true saving faith can overcome this and bring us back to him.
Thus, if someone truly believes in God but temporarily succombs to temptation and kills his neighbor, but then apologizes to God and tries harder, he is saved. (After all, none of us are perfect and even people who have true saving faith will commit evil on occaison due to their imperfection.) On the other hand, if you have never killed another human being but once told a silly lie about being busy a night you weren't in order to avoid being with someone, then if you do not have saving faith this evil act of dishonesty is still enough to push you away from God because ALL evil is ABHORRANT to him. The difference between murder and a small lie may be a factor of one million, but in practice to God's mind murder = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 bad and small lie = 1,000,000,000,000 bad, so both are astronomically evil to him. This is why no matter how good you thing you are, you are still a terrible person in God's eyes due to your imperfections.
Snarkiness is inversely proportional to wisdom because it emphasizes feeling right rather than being right.
God testing people could be for your benifit and not his. It could be a way of teaching the person a lesson about himself. Of course, this wouldn't work on anyone who has read your post, because they would realize there could be no such thing as a real test, and so the lesson would not work.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
> First, he argues: 'We find an intelligent civilization and there's no way in creation we can communicate with them because they're so alien to us. We can't talk to dolphins now. In which case, we'll never know.'
On that note, there's actually an on-going project as CMU's Language Technologies Institute to create technology to allow us to communicate with dolphins.
...but it does raise some interesting questions:
What if our ET friends don't believe in a god? Or what if they believe in a deity completely unrepresentative of an Earthly deity?
Doesn't their very existence contradict certain biblical statements? i.e. creating us in his own image (assuming they're little green men or something).
I think that if that time ever comes, we'll see the religious community clutching at straws to explain these sort of issues.
I give men fish.
When I was in high school, we had a supplementary text in our AP European History class that was full of primary sources from throughout Western history.
Nestled in the back of this book, I found a Catholic Church document from the 60's or so addressing the Catholic position on ministry and evangelism to extraterrestrials (if any were found).
I don't know if it constituted a doctrine or a dogma or what have you, but the gist was that the Church assumes that God's plan of salvation for other worlds may, in fact, be completely unlike His plan of salvation for this one--and thus it is probably inappropriate to evangelize to aliens.
This has always struck me as remarkably sensible.
C.S. Lewis brought up another possible scenario when dealing with aliens and religeon in his book "Out of the Silent Planet". What if the aliens are already perfect christians who didn't mess up in their own garden of eden like we did. Is this why they have no interest in talking to us?
Many of those posts claim that religion is our problem. I disagree. The problem is how people interpret religious texts, teachings, etc. Of course, this leads to the question: if most of the adherents to a religion believe something, isn't that actually what the religion represents? Using this as my guide, I believe it is only a matter of time until the entire planet is either blanketed by one religion or we all kill each other. Place your bets now.
The Italian navigator has reached the New World and the natives are friendly.
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
This is one particular point of doctrine which I believe Lutherans have had right for some time. The correct distinction and understanding of the difference between Law and Gospel is the source of nearly every terrible doctrinal statement from a believer that leads to an easy attack by anyone who picks up a Bible, and rightly so.
Christ is *not* saying in Matt 25 that these things are 12 steps to eternal life. It isn't a manual for how to be saved. He *is* saying that a life of faith will and must produce these works. The works themselves to not save the righteous -- their love of Christ does, which is manifest in their love of neighbor. This is clear from the text itself.
Put another way: if (faith), then (good works). The inverse is also true. Lack of faith means no good works in the eyes of God. The converse is *not* true: good works does not produce faith.
Let's look at some other points of scripture. John 6:51 - "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Salvation, then, is attained by partaking of the means of grace found in the Christ, which can only be received through -- faith. Again, "'I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.'" (John 10:9). This is very clear on the nature of salvation -- we are justified by our relationship to Christ, which we call faith.
Faith is powerful stuff: Matt. 9:22 "'Take heart, daughter,' [Jesus] said, 'your faith has healed you.'". Matthew 9:29 "'According to your faith is will be done to you.'" Luke 5:20 says "When Jesus saw their faith, he said, "Friend, your sins are forgiven."
Maybe the best exposition of this distinction is found in John 14. "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing." (verse 12) "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching..." This does *not* say, "If anyone follows my teaching, then he truly loves me."
Please respond, indeed. I'm no apologist, but I think I have a better grasp of doctrine and scripture than others you may have argued with.
If they do know the difference between good and evil, it's unlikely they'd convert to most Earth religions. Too much of a track record re: killing unbelievers.
First, a disclaimer; IANAB - I am not a believer. However, I've been making something of a study of religions since 9/11, including the histories of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism, in search of clues to the roots of religious violence.
The attitude above, which is common among many educated secularists, is excessively simplistic.
The reason is that the separation of church and state is a very, very recent concept and is still not a totally realized political ideal. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to clearly delineate state violence or political violence from religious violence.
I would say I can make two broad generalizations about large scale religious and non-religious violence:
(1) Religious violence seldom occurs without corresponding political agendas; even the Crusades, which are the prime examples of holy wars, have substantial political underpinnings. Some wars, such as the early Muslim wars of conquest, are often perceived in religious terms but turn out to have virtually no religious underpinnings.
(2) Political agendas are perfectly capable of large scale violence without recourse to religion, for example Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.
Religion is tied up with violence and warfare in an extremely complex ways. Commonly accepted religious systems can be used as frameworks in which ideologies both supporting and opposing war can be posed. My original hypothesis in beginning to study the nexus between religion and war is that religion is a powerful motivator towards war. This, however, I have eventually come to reject. The next hypothesis is that religion is a powerful amplifier of human violence (and anti-violence). Yet I don't feel that the historical evidence is so clear cut on that even. Yes there are incidents where religious fervor appears to be a powerful amplifier of violence, such as in the sacking of Jerusalem in the first Crusade. Yet it is equally true that ethnic, racial and ideological ideas can play exactly the same role.
I would say that religion is often used as a tool to support political agendas. However it is a somewhat untrustworthy tool in the hands of the tyrant. Conservative elements in the great world religions can often cut in ways a ruler might not wish. For example, Sharia evolved as a check on the political power of the caliphs starting from Muawiyah I and later. Admittedly, as a legal system for modern times, Sharia leaves much to be desired. But it has its attractions to muslims who feel abused and downtrodden; this attraction is incoprehensible to anyone who takes the kind of historically simplistic view of religion that secularists do.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Whatever evidence I present isn't going to convince you, and your evidence doesn't convince me. You obviously have very personal reasons for what you believe, that's cool, my beliefs are very personal as well.
Just a couple of non evidence based comments on your comments:
This is the argument put forth in the book of James...
You can pull any sentence out of the bible and say that it conflicts with some other sentence. I say you examine a word in every instance that it is use (i.e. a word study) to get the general take on what the Biblical view is. Therefore, I don't think Jesus's and Paul/James conflict each other, they are different views on the same thing. I'm assuming your response on this will be something like "How can they be different views when they say completely opposite things?" Good question, I think an in-depth study (i.e. not comments on slashdot) should clear this up, although it I think it will come down to a matter of interpretation.
can bring up conflicts, inconsistencies, and contradictions in the Bible all day long...
Great. This sounds like someone shoved the bible down your throat when you were a kid and some philosopher friend in college "showed you the truth." That's awesome. The Bible is basis for my belief however, I think that you are in much more trouble than I am (although that situation can be rectified).
If this is what you are clinging to that prevents you from a relationship with God then I seriously hope you are correct, I'd cling to those inconsistencies with every fiber of my being if I didn't believe in God. However, this is where the argument goes from logical to personal. Everyone has a different take on it and nothing can really be said to change someone's mind.
Like this: I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.
Fine, don't believe me. Look up the evidence on your own as opposed to having some webpage summarize it for you (I'm talking legit research journals now), I suggest starting with Pub Med, it's an NIH database of medical research. Oh, and so you know, Mullis has since changed his position. Even an idiot knows that HIV causes AIDS, tell your friends to update the webpage.
I'm questioning Mullis's authority on the subject. I'm not so much attacking him as I am discrediting him.
I thought a scientist would be able to generate a more convincing argument than "c'mon man."
You are 100% correct. That was an emotion appeal, and not a very good one at that.
The summary of the article mentions three possible ideas: (1) they are too different to communicate with, (2) we convert them to our religion, and (3) they convert us to theirs.
So what about a fourth possibility? What if we discover an alien civilization and once we start communicating with them, we find that one of their religions is exactly the same as one of our religions? What if we find that that same religion keeps popping up over and over again on every planet we visit? If there is, in fact, one true religion, wouldn't it make sense for it to develop on all the planets?
If this ever happens, I predict that the masses will grasp that the chances of this happening purely by coincidence are quite small, and there will be a massive "oh crap, I'd better get to church right now" reaction. :-)
Shouldn't beliefs be formed from careful analysis of arguments, reasoning and evidence?
Really ? Is that why 90+% people in a country like say, Italy are christians?
Is that why a person born to a Hindu family in India "chooses" to be hindu and not shinto? Because his belief was formed from careful analysis of arguments, reasoning and evidence? Is that why a Amreican Indian born in a Cherokee tribe in 1600AD chose his religion and "chose" not to be a neighbouring Chicksaw ?
If I go back in time, kidnap you when you were 2 yrs old and somehow get you adopted by a rural buddist japanese family, would you still choose your belief by a "careful analysis of arguments, reasoning and evidence" ?
Do you even see what I'm trying to say here ? I'm saying that free will is a myth for the vast majority of people. Its the society where they are born in, the atmosphere they grow up in that shapes your belief. And its the same for you. Thats why you "chose" christianity.
Thats why a two yr old boy born to a taliban terrorist is far far more likely to follow militant islamic beliefs. And if you were to go adopt this kid right now.. guees what beliefs he will choose.
Makes me wonder why your god gave birth to this taliban kid in Afghan when he could have easily put him in a rich white suburb in Boston.
Unverifiable sweeping statements on slashdot ... inconvcievable.
About the only thing that resembles your 'fact' is the debate over who the nephilim really were. Some people do believe that they may have been fallen angels, which brought about the existence of giants such as Goliath. This is however not widely debated or even known about amongst christian circles.
On the other hand Christians do believe that there are fallen angels/demons who may present themselves to humans in different forms from time to time.
If you could provide any evidence to your claim I will be open to it's possible truth.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
Guess what ?! ...its got to do with going to heaven
My parents taught me more or less the exact same things. And they've donr more than their fare share of helping the poor and not so poor. But they didnt go to church, chapel, mosque, temple ever. Ever. Infact believers will say they have no faith.
So whats your point ? What does being a good human being have to do with old/new testament, quran etc? Oh right
And according to most of these believers' beliefs my parents and myself wont go to heaven. Well no thanks.
Is there such thing as a universal good? If so, what defines it? Is it a rule, and if so, what about the exceptions which it has?
~UP
Eat the Path.
You probably won't read my post, but let's try this:
If you're so sure that HIV != AIDS, why don't you infect yourself with HIV, don't take any AZT and check if you develop AIDS or not? You see, if you want to be scientific on that, you should do this experiment because you shouldn't be worried.
Ricardo da Silva Lima