13 May 2008

Vatican: It is OK to believe in aliens

Alien

Whew! I was getting worried for my eternal soul until I read this story from The Associated Press!

Seriously, though, I am always surprised by how many Christians I meet who think that belief in extraterrestrial life is a rejection of religion or somehow anti-Christian. I am sure that extends to many non-Christians as well.

Clearly, if the god in which you believe is the creator of the universe, don't you think it is presumptuous to claim that he/she/it is only capable of maintaining one planet with sentient life? Seriously, I find it more difficult to believe that in the whole universe, this little rock is the only one with intelligent life.

Regardless of your religious bent, it simply makes no sense to deny that life might very well exist elsewhere.

Here is the AP story:

Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

By ARIEL DAVID
Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY (AP) -- Believing that the universe may contain alien life does not contradict a faith in God, the Vatican's chief astronomer said in an interview published Tuesday.

The Rev. Jose Gabriel Funes, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, was quoted as saying the vastness of the universe means it is possible there could be other forms of life outside Earth, even intelligent ones.

"How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?" Funes said. "Just as we consider earthly creatures as ‘a brother,' and ‘sister,' why should we not talk about an ‘extraterrestrial brother'? It would still be part of creation."

In the interview by the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, Funes said that such a notion "doesn't contradict our faith" because aliens would still be God's creatures. Ruling out the existence of aliens would be like "putting limits" on God's creative freedom, he said.

The interview, headlined "The extraterrestrial is my brother," covered a variety of topics including the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and science, and the theological implications of the existence of alien life.

Funes said science, especially astronomy, does not contradict religion, touching on a theme of Pope Benedict XVI, who has made exploring the relationship between faith and reason a key aspect of his papacy.

The Bible "is not a science book," Funes said, adding that he believes the Big Bang theory is the most "reasonable" explanation for the creation of the universe. The theory says the universe began billions of years ago in the explosion of a single, super-dense point that contained all matter.

But he said he continues to believe that "God is the creator of the universe and that we are not the result of chance."

Funes urged the church and the scientific community to leave behind divisions caused by Galileo's persecution 400 years ago, saying the incident has "caused wounds."

In 1633 the astronomer was tried as a heretic and forced to recant his theory that the Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

"The church has somehow recognized its mistakes," he said. "Maybe it could have done it better, but now it's time to heal those wounds and this can be done through calm dialogue and collaboration."

Pope John Paul declared in 1992 that the ruling against Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

The Vatican Observatory has been at the forefront of efforts to bridge the gap between religion and science. Its scientist-clerics have generated top-notch research and its meteorite collection is considered one of the world's best.

The observatory, founded by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, is based in Castel Gandolfo, a lakeside town in the hills outside Rome where the pope has a summer residence. It also conducts research at an observatory at the University of Arizona, in Tucson.

---

On the Net:

Vatican Observatory: http://clavius.as.arizona.edu/vo

E-mail to a friend |

category | Religion
author | Lucente

Trackback

There are currently no trackbacks for this item.

Use this TrackBack url to ping this item (right-click, copy link target). If your blog does not support Trackbacks you can manually add your trackback by using this form.

wrote:

OK...GREAT, you are not. However, because I disagree with you almost every time you put pen to paper, I thought I might let you know I AGREE with you on this one. Kind of pisses me off whenever I agree with you on anything, but this is pretty cut and dried in my eyes also.

14 May 2008 04:50:37

Lucente wrote:

Danimal,

You need to relax, man. Just because we agree on one or two things is no need to get pissed off. Everyone agrees with someone occassionally. You cannot honestly agree 100 percent with someone just as you cannont honestly disagree 100 percent with someone.

~tjl~

14 May 2008 22:06:06

wrote:

If it were mathmaticaly allowable, I would disagree 110% with that statement. mad

15 May 2008 03:45:01

Lucente wrote:

I think you proved the statement accurate when you agree with this post.

I bet there are things Adolph Hitler and you agree on. Probably lots. After all, he supported drug laws and gun control as well. He would have loved your position on forcing government will on others.

~tjl~

15 May 2008 12:04:21

wrote:

1st of all brainiac, the HITLER comment is moronic at best. When someone admits defete to themself, they most often resort to some kind of name calling, as you have just done. Yes I and the MAJORITY of Americans suport DRUG LAWS. Get used to it, that ain't going to change. Now as for gun control. Yes, I do suport it to the extent that I do not want ex-cons...felons to be able to freely buy and keep guns. And I believe guns need to be registered. Thats the only 'control' I think is needed. I guess you have a problem with that too? rolleyes

15 May 2008 14:06:48

Lucente wrote:

Danimal,

Name-calling? Just as you are doing?

The Hitler comment was not name-calling, it was simply pointing out that everyone will agree with everyone else on at least one point. I even agreed with Bill Clinton on NAFTA.

And, yes, I have a problem with registering guns. Why should the government know I have a gun? Is it so they can confiscate it later?

~tjl~

15 May 2008 15:26:04

wrote:

DUH? A simple YES, so they can track it. MANY MANY murders and related crimes have been solved by finding the weapon used, checking ownership and tracking it. I thought you were in LAW SCHOOL? Have you never studied any cases where this is indeed the way the crime was solved? Why do you insist in making law enfocments job HARDER?
I'll tell you why, IMHO. You are going to be a DEFENCE LAWYER!!!! ie: Paid liar. A defence lawyers job is NOT TO GET GUITLY people freedom or PLEA DEALS. It is and always should remain to be: To make sure the acused rights have not been violated. PERIOD. How any one can defend a perp for any crime, by blameing others, or twisting the facts of the crime...and can still sleep at night is beyond my feeble skills in understanding. Not a BIG REVALATION YOU agreed with NAFTA. They have not started shipping small town news paper hacks jobs to Mexico...YET.

15 May 2008 17:11:13

wrote:

http://ufo-media.com/video/official-evidence/disclosure-project.html
I am very skeptical as to what really goes on in this world period. What are we suppose to believe?

16 May 2008 00:52:26

wrote:

The link I have left above this one please check it out and then do a little research from there and it will make you wonder about a lot of things.

16 May 2008 00:54:09

wrote:

Another thing I would like to add is how sad of the comment you have made about shipping small town news paper hacks to mexico. Personally I feel any news team that has to continue with all the hype about violence and every other dramatized story just to make a news channel be covered for 30 minutes is sad PERIOD. Guess what though I will never change anything nor will probably anyone else because everyone seems so afraid of changes they just go with the flow. Yada, yada, yada and could go on and on and on but I don't get paid to gossip so have a nice day. Enjoy!

16 May 2008 01:07:00

Lucente wrote:

Danimal,

Let's see. You support gun registration and oppose free trade. Wow. You are a LIBERAL.

For the record, gun registration ALWAYS leads to gun confiscation.

~tjl~

16 May 2008 13:08:39

wrote:

Rather they are from other Plants or are just around. As a Christian, I do believe in Spirits and other beings. There is Demons and there is Angles Sometime these beings do appear to people. In many forms . And I do believe that there is a Heaven and Hell somewhere. Where at no ones knows. The Sun could even be Hell. And one of the Plants could be Heaven. Who knows.

16 May 2008 15:28:48

wrote:

Really/ Wow, I better hide mine. Have had them for over 30 years and not ONE has ever been confiscated. So i guess your 'ALAWAYS' is more like a sometimes..but even more like a NEVER. Unless of course you are breaking the law.

16 May 2008 15:32:28

Lucente wrote:

Anonymous,

Interesting videos. Makes you wonder. Thanks for sharing.

~tjl~

16 May 2008 15:49:08

Lucente wrote:

Military Mom,

I think if there is a heaven and hell, it won't be in our reality but some other reality, so I doubt the sun and the planets will be heaven and hell.

I have read some interesting articles that have posited that angels and demons in the Bible were actually aliens and that some of the biblical stories parallel modern alien abduction stories. Not sure I believe all that, but it is interesting.

~tjl~

16 May 2008 15:58:54

Lucente wrote:

Daninal,

You keep thinking that. However, we don't have a national registration law. But look at your history. Every time a nation has gun registration, confiscation eventually follows. Just because it hasn't happened to you yet, does not mean it won't. What do you think started the American Revolution? British attempts at gun confiscation.

Face it, you are a bleeding-heart liberal.

~tjl~

16 May 2008 16:01:09

wrote:

OH really?
Tom, ...... liberal
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. liberally, liberalness
I assure you, that is not me.

conservative:
ADJECTIVE:

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.
Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.
Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.
NOUN:

One favoring traditional views and values.
A supporter of political conservatism.
Now that is me.
The traditional view on drugs...they are not legal. They never need to be legal.
Public display of nudity..(lude crude, perverse) not acceptable. Thats is a CONSERVATIVE view. Perhaps you should go back to class.
For instance, I know I can't spell worth a crap. Never could, it does not make sense to me. Huked on foniks werks 4 me. But in my case, I know it is a short comming. HOwever, in your case, you are having trouble with two simple concepts...conservative/liberal....and cant even understand that you are wrong.
16 May 2008 17:59:56

16 May 2008 18:04:15

Lucente wrote:

Conservatives:
Anti-gun control (and anti-gun registration)
Pro free trade
Pro limited government

Liberals
Pro-gun control
Anti-free trade
Pro Big Government

You might think you are a conservative. And you might even vote Republican, but I think it is clear where your political views lie.

~tjl~

16 May 2008 23:34:48

Tee Cee wrote:

Hey Mr. L. , have to agree with you on the gun control, you have to be nuts to register a gun.
You are right it worked for Hitler, as for me , do I have guns?, go check the registers and see !!

As for NAFTA, I believe it cost us (as in U.S.) one hell of a lot of jobs.
One thing it did do is turn too many of those moronic Canadian truck drivers loose to terrorize I 75 travelers.
Hillery is against it, Bubba Bill signed it in, explain that, yeah I know CAMPAIGN babble.

As for life on other planets, I don't know could be, our God is capable of anything.
He knows what is best, I just wonder if there is life there I'm sure God made them in His image also.
DO YOU SUPPOSE JESUS WAS THERE TO SAVE THEM TOO??
I'm not making fun, I'm too strong a Christian for that, I really do wonder about that.

Oh, before I leave ,danimal if you look at the top of your screen there is a thing called "spell check" I'm sure someone could show you how to use it.

17 May 2008 02:35:54

wrote:

Thank God no one reads the Marion Luecent dictionary. The government is a bloated pig that needs culled. It was your HERO Clinton, the liberal, that went after NAFTA. So by your own definition, you are in conflict with yourself. No wonder its so hard to make any snese out of what you say.

17 May 2008 02:41:36

wrote:

TEE CEE.
I know its there. And I don't care to use it. I am sure all you educated and computer savy readers can muddle through and read every word I type. I before E except after C. Only that rule don't work. Not my fault I grew up when folks didn't know how to teach. Heck, when I went to school, Cloumbus was a GOOD guy, and discovered the Americas. Thank goodness the History Channle is on now, so we caan get the real scoop. Now when they start a spelling channle, I will be all over it. And NO sesame street don't teach spelling either.
Some of the OTHER greatest minds in history were also lousy spellers. I am in good company. But thanks for the info.

17 May 2008 02:51:43

wrote:

Tee Cee..you said
"As for NAFTA, I believe it cost us (as in U.S.) one hell of a lot of jobs.
One thing it did do is turn too many of those moronic Canadian truck drivers loose to terrorize I 75 travelers.
Hillery is against it, Bubba Bill signed it in, explain that, yeah I know CAMPAIGN babble."
Just for the record, backtrack Hillary, the LIBERAL, and LIAR..(sniper fire? HAhahaha) was ALL FOR NAFTA when Bubba was pres. She just changed her stripes to get votes from blue color types that have lost thier Jobs to NAFTA stupidity. Wont be long until that demogaphic alone can get someone elected.

17 May 2008 02:56:45

Tee Cee wrote:

danimal, I always remembered it as " I before E except after C and in BudwEIser.
That is Putnam county reasoning, you know beer consumption capital of Ohio!

17 May 2008 13:07:12

Lucente wrote:

Tee Cee and Danimal,

I don't understand this opposition to NAFTA. If you look at unbiased studies, NAFTA has actually resulted in a net GAIN of jobs in the United States. Since NAFTA went into effect, there has been a loss of 3.1 million manufacturing jobs. However, there is no indication that most of that job loss was related to NAFTA. Most of those jobs would have been lost anyway because the U.S. economy is moving away from manufacturing. Government monitoring of NAFTA losses is flawed because the formula used to monitor it was written in a way to appease the unions.

Additionally, during that same period, there has been a total INCREASE of more than 25 million jobs in the U.S.

Finally, job losses in Mexico far exceed our own. Mexico has seen a net loss of jobs since NAFTA while the U.S. and Canada have seen increases.

I think the problem here is that anti-NAFTA forces, such as unions and other liberals, have been aggressive in spreading their lies about NAFTA and very few people are challenging them.

~tjl~

17 May 2008 13:38:56

wrote:

Just incase you didn't read the other blog answer....but i doubt that, with your ego!
Have a nWhy such divergent views? NAFTA was a radical experiment - never before had a merger of three nations with such radically different levels of development been attempted. Plus, until NAFTA, “trade” agreements only dealt with cutting tariffs and lifting quotas to set the terms of trade in goods between countries. But NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws - regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils.

NAFTA requires limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in our grocery stores; new patent rules that raised medicine prices; constraints on your local government’s ability to zone against sprawl or toxic industries; and elimination of preferences for spending your tax dollars on U.S.-made products or locally-grown food. In fact, calling NAFTA a “trade” agreement is misleading, NAFTA is really an investment agreement. Its core provisions grant foreign investors a remarkable set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs and the privatization and deregulation of essential services, such as water, energy and health care.

Remarkably, many of NAFTA’s most passionate boosters in Congress and among economists never read the agreement. They made their pie-in-the-sky promises of NAFTA benefits based on trade theory and ideological prejudice for anything with the term “free trade” attached to it.

Now, over a decade later, the time for conjecture and promises is over: the data are in and they clearly show the damage NAFTA has wrought for millions of people in the U.S., Mexico and Canada. Thankfully, the failed NAFTA model - a watered down version of which is also contained in the World Trade Organization (WTO) - is merely one among many options.

17 May 2008 17:04:25

Lucente wrote:

Danimal,

You don't even know me so how can you judge the level of my ego? Is it just because I have the gall to express my opinion and am willing to debate it publicly? I follow John Adams' advice: State your opinion boldly and defend it ardently. That has nothing to do with ego.

Just curious.

~tjl~

18 May 2008 02:43:57

wrote:

You know what? You are right. It was out of anger that I slamed you for EGO. So I will say I am sorry. Anger realy has no room in debate. And also, let me give you credit for being devoted enough to your job to be up at this hour. I don't doubt for a moment that you are not passionate about what you do. Its just your MATTER OF FACT, this is the way it style that bugs me. Probably because I am the same way. Go figure. So again, forgive my words of anger. I will try to keep it on a debate style footing.

18 May 2008 03:51:42

Lucente wrote:

Danimal,

No problem. I completely understand, I say things in debates I wish I hadn't as well.

And it is not devotion that had me up at that hour. It is a 2-year-old who doesn't like to go to sleep at a decent time. Because I work second-shift, she thinks she has to keep that schedule, too!

~tjl~

19 May 2008 12:40:33

wrote:

TOM...I feel your pain brother!!!! But mine is now grown and gone. Strangly, there are times I miss that stuff in the early morning. But the thought glides by rapidly when i recall the diaper changes!!! LOL

19 May 2008 15:07:01

Lucente wrote:

Yes, diapers are a way of life for me. And I have another baby due any day now. More diapers and 4 a.m. feedings!

19 May 2008 21:38:05

wrote:

I assume you ain't breast feeding!!! When I was born, Mom never breast fed me either. She said she only liked me as a friend!!!! (don't know who wrote that) But Granny breast fed me in staed....now I only buy outdated dairy products!!!! ( I wrote the second part) biggrin