4 ms·

> Well I'll take the bait, is there like a second god for other planets and species? No, the God of Catholicism is the God of all Creation. That means the enti

> Well I'll take the bait, is there like a second god for other planets and species? No, the God of Catholicism is the God of all Creation. That means the entire universe, including time itself. > Would non-human intelligent life have souls? Catholic teaching is that all life has some manner of soul. Humans have rational souls. Intelligent life would therefore have souls. > Why wasn't this mentioned in the Bible? Doesn't this mean that both creation stories are inconvertibly false? Why would it? It doesn't claim to be comprehensive or complete. > how could they square away the fact the vast majority of all life could exist without knowing salvation via Christ? Being ignorant of Christ doesn't automatically mean you are damned, but this now means belief in Christ is optional and kind of just a localized thing some humans choose to do Many, many human begins lived and died without knowing Christ. Why would aliens present a problem? Perhaps they wouldn't even need it. CS Lewis wrote science fictions with un-Fallen aliens. Maybe such a thing could exist. > if for example aliens claimed their savior was the "real" messiah, how could you dismiss that? Catholics don't seem to have a problem dismissing other messiahs. Why would an alien messiah be different? > events the Rapture essentially cease to make sense or will have to be radically re-imagined. The Rapture as depicted in something like Left Behind is not how the event is generally understood in Catholicism or other sects. There's no reason it would have to change at all.

lancefisher 6y ago
I really liked Perelandra and the space trilogy books from C.S. Lewis. Recommend read if your interested in exploring the Christian worldview and thoughts on aliens.
question000 6y ago
So two points here I disagree with (though I'm not I a Catholic I can't really explain their belief system.) One is the belief a all intelligent things have a soul, obviously fetuses and intelligent life do, but animals functionally don't. Aliens could fall somewhere on the potential intelligence spectrum between sperm and fetus or only one in a billion could reach acceptable intelligence for a soul whatever that is deemed to be. What if they are intelligent, but physically cannot believe in God? Is that just metaphysically impossible? Second is that the Bible doesn't claim to be comprehensive. This kind of weird to argue against, basically anything disagreeable in the Bible could be controverted then. It's like saying there COULD be an 11th commandment or something of that nature. It makes the Bible not necessarily wrong but difficult to take seriously.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >One is the belief a all intelligent things have a soul, obviously fetuses and intelligent life do, but animals functionally don't. Who is to say? >Second is that the Bible doesn't claim to be comprehensive. This kind of weird to argue against, basically anything disagreeable in the Bible could be controverted then. It's like saying there COULD be an 11th commandment or something of that nature. It makes the Bible not necessarily wrong but difficult to take seriously. In traditional Christianity (not protestantism) the Bible is not the be all end all. Oral tradition, lived experience of the church community, the so-called prominent figures ("fathers of the church"), etc, mattered as much if not more. It was protestantism (a kind of crude fundamentalist "back to the basics" movement not that different to muslim fundamendalism of today, which is in fact a distortion of the actual tradition which was never just about the Bible and only about what's in the Bible/NT) that makes the Bible/New Testament the be-all/end-all.
  - nobodyandproud 6y ago
    In fairness, protestantism was a rejection of the idea that the Catholic church has a monopoly on Christianity. As with any large organization, greed and corruption settles in sooner or later; and the Catholic organization still can’t shed its bad habits. Nor does it own up to it. That’s not to say that the fundamentalist protestants in the US have got it right; they certainly have their fair share of cock-ups and scandles and shouldn’t be trusted either. This is why appreciate the US’ separation of religion from politics.
    - coldtea 6y ago
      >In fairness, protestantism was a rejection of the idea that the Catholic church has a monopoly on Christianity. Well, there was already the Orthodox church, the Coptic search, and a few others, so that was quite clear. Protestantism was both a reaction against the power of the Pope (via Catholic church) to the Germanic etc nations, who remained "christian" but wanted their own church to break away from Rome, plus a simplification of the faith that reduced its subtler points to fit their mentality... A version of christianity for peoples who haven't had much of a philosophic legacy. Then you add calvisnism for people who'd like to get richn and feel good about it, without all the christian guilt about the subject of money (they kept and expanded the guilt at the domains of sex and fun -- which is why protestants have been way more killjoys than the catholics).

lancefisher 6y ago

I really liked Perelandra and the space trilogy books from C.S. Lewis. Recommend read if your interested in exploring the Christian worldview and thoughts on aliens.

question000 6y ago

So two points here I disagree with (though I'm not I a Catholic I can't really explain their belief system.) One is the belief a all intelligent things have a soul, obviously fetuses and intelligent life do, but animals functionally don't. Aliens could fall somewhere on the potential intelligence spectrum between sperm and fetus or only one in a billion could reach acceptable intelligence for a soul whatever that is deemed to be. What if they are intelligent, but physically cannot believe in God? Is that just metaphysically impossible? Second is that the Bible doesn't claim to be comprehensive. This kind of weird to argue against, basically anything disagreeable in the Bible could be controverted then. It's like saying there COULD be an 11th commandment or something of that nature. It makes the Bible not necessarily wrong but difficult to take seriously.

coldtea 6y ago
>One is the belief a all intelligent things have a soul, obviously fetuses and intelligent life do, but animals functionally don't. Who is to say? >Second is that the Bible doesn't claim to be comprehensive. This kind of weird to argue against, basically anything disagreeable in the Bible could be controverted then. It's like saying there COULD be an 11th commandment or something of that nature. It makes the Bible not necessarily wrong but difficult to take seriously. In traditional Christianity (not protestantism) the Bible is not the be all end all. Oral tradition, lived experience of the church community, the so-called prominent figures ("fathers of the church"), etc, mattered as much if not more. It was protestantism (a kind of crude fundamentalist "back to the basics" movement not that different to muslim fundamendalism of today, which is in fact a distortion of the actual tradition which was never just about the Bible and only about what's in the Bible/NT) that makes the Bible/New Testament the be-all/end-all.
- nobodyandproud 6y ago
  In fairness, protestantism was a rejection of the idea that the Catholic church has a monopoly on Christianity. As with any large organization, greed and corruption settles in sooner or later; and the Catholic organization still can’t shed its bad habits. Nor does it own up to it. That’s not to say that the fundamentalist protestants in the US have got it right; they certainly have their fair share of cock-ups and scandles and shouldn’t be trusted either. This is why appreciate the US’ separation of religion from politics.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >In fairness, protestantism was a rejection of the idea that the Catholic church has a monopoly on Christianity. Well, there was already the Orthodox church, the Coptic search, and a few others, so that was quite clear. Protestantism was both a reaction against the power of the Pope (via Catholic church) to the Germanic etc nations, who remained "christian" but wanted their own church to break away from Rome, plus a simplification of the faith that reduced its subtler points to fit their mentality... A version of christianity for peoples who haven't had much of a philosophic legacy. Then you add calvisnism for people who'd like to get richn and feel good about it, without all the christian guilt about the subject of money (they kept and expanded the guilt at the domains of sex and fun -- which is why protestants have been way more killjoys than the catholics).