Vatican studying ET

[methshin]

It makes you wonder if the Catholic Church knows something so as to prepare people for what is coming.

I'm fairly confident they don't know a damn thing. Mainly b/c they claim to know so much.

 

[Ezechiel]

Wow, just a few examples of the suspicion, the cynicism, and the vicious stereotyping of churchmen and their motives that one runs into far too often. Of course, no one believes members of the Catholic clergy are interested in actually discovering the TRUTH! Just very disappointing ...

Doesn't the clergy already know the truth ?! Does not compute.

Interest is fine and dandy, but how far can you stretch the doctrine to include biblically incompatible physical world components before it snaps ?

Churchmen should restrict their interest to the non-material spiritual aspects of this universe and not start making judgments on foreign entities.

 

[Xylo]

Coming from an Atheist point of view I say let them study it. It's an interesting read, the article I mean. Not sure if it will change any doctrine that they have, or if they will deliberate for a long time period to change meanings of current doctrine.

Whatever happens, I think mankind has always had some sort of a push or momentum towards finding Truth. Unfortunately, the truths that we seem to have found and espoused historically have always been exclusive and not inclusive. I don't expect their findings to be any different.

 

[TClaeys]

Wow, just a few examples of the suspicion, the cynicism, and the vicious stereotyping of churchmen and their motives that one runs into far too often. Of course, no one believes members of the Catholic clergy are interested in actually discovering the TRUTH! Just very disappointing ...

That would certainly be nice if that were the case. However I'm not sure how the church makes sense of certain things.

Take this for example: The Vatican gave Stephen Hawking the Pope Pius XI award for his work that seemed to support the big bang model. The church was pleased with this because of the apparent "creation moment". But what if there wasn't a creation moment?? How would the church deal with this?? Because, as you may know, at the same time Hawking was in the Vatican for this award he was making appearances and lectures about the No Boundary Proposal. Although the lecture and paper was highly technical, it basically said that there was not a singularity moment where physics falls off the map. In other words Hawking was saying that there was not a "creation moment", but the church didn't know this at the time.

Do you think they would have awarded Hawking if his lectures indicating no "creation moment" was known?? I'm guessing not. Why?? Because it wouldn't endorse their beliefs and work within their framework. I don't have anything against the church per se, but let's be real. They are not going to go out of their way to endorse something that goes against the grain whether it may be truthful or not. You may disagree, but what would you have the church say?? There was no creation?? If it were the truth, do think they would say this??

BTW, I think we can all read here. You don't need to highlight, underline, and boldface everything. We get the idea.

 

[skunkape]

I'm studying why the pope wears that funny hat and why Chistists say "Amen". Those two simple questions, in conjunction with the fact that there is an obelisk in St. Peter's Square, London, and D.C. has lead me down a deep, dark rabbit-hole here lately.
Let's just say I'm not too excited about the 'Second Coming.'
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[DVS]

I'm studying why the pope wears that funny hat and why Chistists say "Amen". Those two simple questions, in conjunction with the fact that there is an obelisk in St. Peter's Square, London, and D.C. has lead me down a deep, dark rabbit-hole here lately.
Let's just say I'm not too excited about the 'Second Coming.'
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

There is also one in Central Park, NYC but that's only the tip of the Obelisk, (sorry about that)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisks

 

[jpw.in.wi]

Do you think they would have awarded Hawking if his lectures indicating no "creation moment" was known?? I'm guessing not. Why?? Because it wouldn't endorse their beliefs and work within their framework.

I don't pretend to be a scholar or some sort of expert on the Church or anything. I'm just a nobody, a "cradle Catholic" who struggles with doubts and my own glaring human failings on a daily basis, just like anyone else. I try to understand my church and my faith as far as my lame brain will allow (and I secretly enjoy fumbling to express myself in writing by participating in the Paracast forums!).

As for the point you brought up, from what I understand (which again isn't much), the Church (talking about the Catholic Church, now; not the totality of all Christian denominations) does not take theories from scientific fields and turn them into defined dogma--the very top of the "hierarchy of truths". And it's a good thing it doesn't!!!! Just imagine how embarrassing that would have been if they had said, "Yes, Galileo, you are absolutely, 100% error free in your claim that the Sun is the REAL center of the Universe, not the Earth."

After a quick search, I found a pretty good spot where readers who really would like to learn more of the FACTS no one ever taught them before about the Church and its regard for science may begin:

Science and the Church, from the Catholic Encyclopedia

Plus, there's that book I mentioned in my earlier posts that is a real gold mine of information that, again, most people have never been taught about the Church as benefactor of the sciences, and about churchmen as pioneers in the fields of science. I wonder why ...

BTW, I think we can all read here. You don't need to highlight, underline, and boldface everything. We get the idea.

This is really a GREAT thread! Thanks for starting it, Schuyler!

 

[Ezechiel]

Take this for example: The Vatican gave Stephen Hawking the Pope Pius XI award for his work that seemed to support the big bang model. The church was pleased with this because of the apparent "creation moment". But what if there wasn't a creation moment?? How would the church deal with this?? Because, as you may know, at the same time Hawking was in the Vatican for this award he was making appearances and lectures about the No Boundary Proposal. Although the lecture and paper was highly technical, it basically said that there was not a singularity moment where physics falls off the map. In other words Hawking was saying that there was not a "creation moment", but the church didn't know this at the time.

Do you think they would have awarded Hawking if his lectures indicating no "creation moment" was known?? I'm guessing not. Why?? Because it wouldn't endorse their beliefs and work within their framework. I don't have anything against the church per se, but let's be real. They are not going to go out of their way to endorse something that goes against the grain whether it may be truthful or not. You may disagree, but what would you have the church say?? There was no creation?? If it were the truth, do think they would say this??

BTW, I think we can all read here. You don't need to highlight, underline, and boldface everything. We get the idea.

Good point I mean excellent LOL

The equivalent of trying to fix a flag in the middle of a stream Just bound to be carried away by the current at any moment.

I wonder how they incorporate 'destruction moments' perpetuated by black holes eating up the center of our galaxy ? ....That must be rapture as we get sucked up by a infinite density gravity well.

Apologists... here we come again LOLOL<SIGH>

 

[Schuyler]

Plus, there's that book I mentioned in my earlier posts that is a real gold mine of information that, again, most people have never been taught about the Church as benefactor of the sciences, and about churchmen as pioneers in the fields of science. I wonder why ...

Well, maybe when they put Galileo on trial for heresy for daring to suggest the Earth was not the center of the Universe, placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life, and banned his 'Dialogue' plus anything he might write in the future, that kind of put a damper on the idea that the Church supported science. Galileo's heliocentric theory would, after all, "harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."

However, you're right. It's not the case that the Church can't change at all. The Gregorian calendar (before Galileo) is a good example. This next bit is going to have to be from memory, so I may make some mistakes: The Church had a calendar impressed in stone which marked the spring equinox. A beam of sunlight would hit a precise place on this stone calendar every year--for awhile. But, of course, it gradually moved because of precession to the point where it was obviously false. Pope Gregory was brought in to look at how far off it was, and this resulted in the tweaks to leap year and so forth that are the Gregorian Calendar. I believe there is an accounting of this in either Burke's "Connections" series or his "Day the Universe Stood still." Both are ten-hour long videos, so I'm not going to be able to go through and find the exact passage. Anyway, that's one good example.

I'm not of the opinion that the Church will go away any time soon. I have a good friend who is a devout Catholic and a Marine Biologist and scientist. That 'it's working' for him as well as the ignorant peasant in a dirt hut tells me the Church has managed to keep the faith despite the changes it has undergone.

If Disclosure were to happen, I don't think my friend would even blink an eyelash. As to what Church doctrine might say, well, he thinks the Pope is an idiot anyway. Thus you have the faith part and the politics part.

 

[tyder001]

Truth is that not only religon but science would also be upended depending on what and who the "aliens" were. I remember getting a brochure (don't know how I got on their mailingl list) from Michael Schermer and a few other atheist who masqarae their "faith" as science. Honestly, even if you are an atheist if you read that brochure you would have thought them very religious. The homage to "scientism" was really intense. "Our" science will explain everything. Kind of the same propaganda some Christians use when they say "our" God. Anyway, just sayin!

The problem with the world is that wise people are so full of doubt while zealots and experts are so cetain. (bad paraphrase of Bertrand Russell.) but I gotta leave something for ya to google.

 

[tyder001]

Not that anyone here will but just in case....Please don't try to convert me to religion or atheism since I have honestly looked at both (religion more I admit.)and have found both wanting. I do have my "faith" and opinons of how it all works but I honestly don't know.

I keep my visions to myself....Stevie Nicks.

 

[Ezechiel]

Truth is that not only religon but science would also be upended depending on what and who the "aliens" were. I remember getting a brochure (don't know how I got on their mailingl list) from Michael Schermer and a few other atheist who masqarae their "faith" as science. Honestly, even if you are an atheist if you read that brochure you would have thought them very religious. The homage to "scientism" was really intense. "Our" science will explain everything. Kind of the same propaganda some Christians use when they say "our" God. Anyway, just sayin!

The problem with the world is that wise people are so full of doubt while zealots and experts are so cetain. (bad paraphrase of Bertrand Russell.) but I gotta leave something for ya to google.

You haven't heard of 'Ignosticism' by any chance ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.

This should care about assumptions concerning any atheist or theist positions . No definition = no position lol

 

[tyder001]

Very interesting. No I had not heard of it b4. Can't say I "agree" with it but then again what is there to "agree" with? Anyway, I guess it all comes down to our own expereince. What's important or real to me may not be something you have ever experienced so you may not have any "ground" of reference to it. Reminds me (although I'm not sure why.) of a conversation had with a friend the other day. I'm a football (American college not soccer)fan while my freind finds that hard to really get into. He says well I didn't go to Alabama or Florida or Ohio State so I don't really care who wins. Now to me it is incredible that he can't "care" if the Tide wins. But to him it's a nonsense thing to even consider. Or is this a bad example? Anyway I learned a new "werd" today ....Ignosticism (or should I say a new term?) It doesn't really strike a chord with me but it's a thought.