Vatican ready to make a statement on extraterrestrial life?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
What if they simply announce they discovered extra terrestrial microorganisms?

Didn't NASA already do that when they released info about that Mars meteorite that was found at the south pole? Something like that???

Yes I believe so, this could simply be another.

I hope its massive and has been kept quite and our space bothers are on their way and that is the reason a few members of ATS have been almost spilling the beans so to speak in the aviation forums about advanced aircraft being needed and ready by a certain time.

As far as I'm concerned, the Examiner is no more credible than BIN. Aside from that, they should be addressing more important matters pertaining to them like pedophila and a troublesome decline in recruiting new clergy.

There have been issues in the past with religious influences upon EA*RTH, accepted...
But as the species matures these issues lose strength and eventually momentum.

1 is not the judge nor jury of any religious groups of EA*RTH but am intelligent enough to recognize the positive effects they had on many and so cannot place void them. Has there been some extremely difficult to even consider activities done within the eye of the Vatican yes and the HOPE is they are doing their best to fix these issues that have blemished its cause...

With this in mind/acknowledged the mistakes of extreme ignorance look over / ignored in the past, it should today be uncomforting grounds to demonstrate these activities of ignorance why representing the LORD JESUS CHRIST.

With the possible information share(s) in association to ET it kind of makes sense that when its time to disclose, certain steps shall be taken to assist the religious mind states globally so that they remain stable and don't stray away from belief and become unstable to levels of calling all et demons due to ignorance and fear...
So it makes sense the Vatican may be part of the global broadcast system and potentially other religious representation if balance is found on time.
For if not it could become a confusing scenario for our space family to come and see up close religions of current interacting in extremely ignorance ways with groups fighting. Why other religious groups are showing love but all carrying the religious labels, confusing. May even slow the process of disclosure if not adjusted correctly. For how can part of the species be LOVE and the other in LACK of, be a logical species to mass interact with?

Can you imaging going to another planet and some greeting you peacefully under religious labels and so you associate religions of that planet with peace from that point on. And then as you further interact on/with that planet thinking you understand it, you encounter a religious group(s) that reflects the exact opposite behavior or hate. How you would feel?

Like how are these groups considered religious & peaceful as well but act unlike the other originally encountered now peaceful religious groups. Confusing...


So what ever the process is if the Vatican is part of many, 1 wishes them luck in presenting to the masses as best possible the information...

NAMASTE*******

originally posted by: 2012newstart
a reply to: knoledgeispower

damn it! I didn't vote for the canonization, anyway it is a fact. Perhaps it matters for the faithful catholics .

I thought you'd rather demonize aliens. In all, too little has been said and too late. Ashtar crew members are not enough, neither are the abductees of little green men. The world needs the issue on the table asap before the next disaster happens.

I know you didn't vote for it but that's how people feel, why trust a religion that allows for child molestation & sometimes the murder of those victims?

Why demonize aliens? I'm not of those silly people who thinks they are evil.

I don't think the church will be saying "yes we know for 100% sure there are aliens" I think it will be more on the line of "There is a high possibility of life out there, whether it be microbial or a more complex life. It doesn't mean that they are an abomination and that God didn't create them"

Why does it need to be before the next disaster? Do you think the aliens would now suddenly intervene?

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: Klassified

I'm sure the ETs are relieved that the Catholic Church has okay'd their existence... if they have a sense of humor, the reason they visit becomes apparent.

Why not? I suggest they read here too, as well as all over internet/TV. They are not on a distant star to wonder how to cross the vast distance. They don't have to ask Hawking is it permissible by earth-level knowledge of Physics, to make a wormhole or a better device. Laws created by God far beyond our wildest imagination today (as the current level is beyond the imagination of Ancient Rome). They had a time to research for hundreds of thousands of years more than we do, if we take into account the fact our sun is relatively "new" generation star. There are much older ones in the Universe, logically much older and developed civilizations than we are. 5000 year civilization with 4700y pre-industrial period, civilization getting to the brink of self-destruction as soon as more tech capabilities are GRANTED in our hands, is not the best example in the galaxy, I guess.

The Space visitors are here for at least 70 years, may be much longer. You may want to check the thread of Stan Friedman in UFO forum. In that sense, they will be more happy with a more fulfilled mission, if the leaders (and not only leaders) of 1bln Catholic church say, "OK you are not demons but brothers in Christ". We see that happening, although VERY SLOWLY. Jesuits who say a word at a time for the last several decades. Now the pope says it with "baptizing Martians" phrase.

Hope the ET plans are much faster and bigger than that. Actually I can't comprehend why they are still waiting. The world will never be aware 100% or even 50% at the time of the first public contact, no matter it comes today, or after another 10 years agony. And they should know that being quite more advanced in sociology, psychology, etc.

Do they wait for a big disaster first, to rescue us only then? Why not without such a terrible scenario? Why not landing in several world capitals now, or hundreds if you will, and starting from that point on to show to the world the different story of the galaxy? It doesn't mean we stop believing in Jesus Christ, the Saints and the Angels...an who the Angels are btw?

In that way, yes the pope is not needed to OK that event to happen. But yes he is needed to OK the aliens are not demonic, as many many Christians believe out of fanaticism deeply rooted during centuries. From Roman perspective that is the big problem, not the technical arrival thru the vastness of space that seem already occurred secretly. Rome perspective is not my perspective, and I await the first public contact regardless of where the Churches stand. At least some will accept it, as the pope clearly showed.

Why should I discuss other issues being inserted in this thread (although with best intentions of their posters), instead of intellectual and elaborated discussion of what is the latest in a string of ET -related activities?

Michael Salla is not someone unknown. He is respected scientist and I recommend everyone who hasn't read more from him, to google it a bit.


I also want to differentiate between pope's view, jesuit-astronomers' views, and "Rome or Vatican" that are pretty much at odds with the new pope on multiple issues. And set apart the positions of thousands catholic bishops spread throughout the world. The latter would do better to start talking on that and to stop delivering good otherwise homilies but detached from reality. They all read internet and know at least as much as I do.

This is where the Church comes forward and makes all the "killing In the name of" stuff make sense...

It's been practice.

Now is where we all get together to help our God kick the crap out of the Alien God (who will likely look a lot like Cthulu)

I wonder what Jesus's main weapon will be? I'm hoping for a staff that shoots fire personally

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Why in the world would anyone care what the Vatican thinks about extraterrestrial life?

The Catholic Church has completely lost ALL credibility.

Also seems extremely suspicious considering the probe and sex abuse connections that they both seem to have in common.

The underlined can never be true, men are sinners we are all sinners but Our Lord's promise to Peter, Satan will not
overcome My Church in Matthew 16:18. God knows the future.

1% of the priests were accused in the priest scandal, what about the rest and are all the accused guilty? Satan
hates the New Covenant ministerial priesthood. He believes in the grace given. Records show the priest
scandal victims were POSTpubescent males. The world now, the liberal press can't call the priest scandal
what it was, homosexual because they approve of sodomy.

I am wondering, true caring, why are you so against the Faith?

The observatory built in Arizona was not for looking at alien life but to watch for the incoming. It is prophesied,
there will be a comet, celestial to get the world's attention for God's awakening and it will come around again, for the prophesied just judgment of God, this time by fire at the end of the 6th Day. The Chastisement.


God bless you,

a reply to: colbe

Sorry Murgatroid,

I didn't underline your sentence.


"The Catholic Church has completely lost ALL credibility."

originally posted by: colbe

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Why in the world would anyone care what the Vatican thinks about extraterrestrial life?

The Catholic Church has completely lost ALL credibility.

Also seems extremely suspicious considering the probe and sex abuse connections that they both seem to have in common.

I am wondering, true caring, why are you so against the Faith?

The observatory built in Arizona was not for looking at alien life but to watch for the incoming. It is prophesied,
there will be a comet, celestial to get the world's attention for God's awakening and it will come around again, for the prophesied just judgment of God, this time by fire at the end of the 6th Day. The Chastisement.


God bless you,

Not to speak on his behalf and he is welcome to correct me obviously, but he appears to have alluded to it when speaking to FlyersFan. He mentions the name Fr. Malachi Martin who was a Vatican insider who eventually left the Vatican and became a best selling author both fictional and non-fictional.

To some it up, he writes a book called: "The Keys of This Blood" in which he states:

"Most frighteningly for [Pope] John Paul [II], he had come up against the irremovable presence of a malign strength in his own Vatican and in certain bishops’ chanceries. It was what knowledgeable Churchmen called the ‘superforce.’ Rumors, always difficult to verify, tied its installation to the beginning of Pope Paul VI’s reign in 1963. Indeed Paul had alluded somberly to ‘the smoke of Satan which has entered the Sanctuary’. . . an oblique reference to an enthronement ceremony by Satanists in the Vatican. Besides, the incidence of Satanic pedophilia—rites and practices— was already documented among certain bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen Archangel’s rites." (p. 632)

It should also be noted that there are some serious parallels between accusations made against the Catholic Church and those made against Lt. Col. Michael Aquino and other Satanists.

Regards

a reply to: Rosinitiate

He mentions the name Fr. Malachi Martin who was a Vatican insider who eventually left the Vatican and became a best selling author both fictional and non-fictional.

Martin's "sensational" accusations against the Vatican came in a work of fiction. His claims have as much credibility as those made in The Da Vinci Code -- if 85% of that book is "fact", does it mean that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene?

The fact that Martin was singing false prophet Hal "Late Great Planet Earth" Lindsey's praises is enough for me to say that he's a complete joke.

Caller: My question is, I wanted to know if you were familiar with the, a, story that came by--at least to me--by Hal Lindsey--the evangelical author and prophetical scholar?

M.M.: Yes, I like Hal very much. I think he's God-like.

Caller: He's on the ball.

M.M.: He's on the ball…I do esteem Hal Lindsey very much. (Source)

A BS artist like Lindsey is "God-like"? Sorry, Martin is someone that only a delusional fool could take seriously.

originally posted by: 2012newstart

The Space visitors are here for at least 70 years, may be much longer. You may want to check the thread of Stan Friedman in UFO forum. In that sense, they will be more happy with a more fulfilled mission, if the leaders (and not only leaders) of 1bln Catholic church say, "OK you are not demons but brothers in Christ". We see that happening, although VERY SLOWLY. Jesuits who say a word at a time for the last several decades. Now the pope says it with "baptizing Martians" phrase.

Why do aliens have to be here for at least 70yrs? That seems very odd & random. What is this mission you speak of that you want them to be happy about fulfilling? I think the Catholic Church is only saying "You are not a demon but brothers in Christ" is so that IF and that's a big if, aliens were to come here, people wouldn't abandon the Catholic religion. Which if you ask me should be abandoned simply for the fact that the bible is a big fictional story book and has been twisted & corrupted like all religions. It's time for Spirituality.

Hope the ET plans are much faster and bigger than that. Actually I can't comprehend why they are still waiting. The world will never be aware 100% or even 50% at the time of the first public contact, no matter it comes today, or after another 10 years agony. And they should know that being quite more advanced in sociology, psychology, etc.

What plans do these ET's have and why do you think they have them?
Sociology would be different for the ET's than for us.

Do they wait for a big disaster first, to rescue us only then? Why not without such a terrible scenario? Why not landing in several world capitals now, or hundreds if you will, and starting from that point on to show to the world the different story of the galaxy? It doesn't mean we stop believing in Jesus Christ, the Saints and the Angels...an who the Angels are btw?

You ignored when I asked this before so hopefully you don't ignore it again, why do they need a big disaster to "rescue" us? It may mean that we stop believing Jesus Christ, the Saints & the angels because Jesus & the angels may have been aliens themselves for all we know. Chances are though that there is no Jesus, Saints or angels but that doesn't mean that there isn't a higher power. Religion just twisted the story around, like when you play the game "telephone" the original message gets lost along the way.

In that way, yes the pope is not needed to OK that event to happen. But yes he is needed to OK the aliens are not demonic, as many many Christians believe out of fanaticism deeply rooted during centuries. From Roman perspective that is the big problem, not the technical arrival thru the vastness of space that seem already occurred secretly. Rome perspective is not my perspective, and I await the first public contact regardless of where the Churches stand. At least some will accept it, as the pope clearly showed.

I don't think people would believe ET's to be demons, I think you are just assuming that. Even if the Pope were to say "hey they aren't demons" there are those that still would believe them to be demons but it doesn't matter, it's only a small portion compares to the rest of the world and the ET's would set those people straight.

Michael Salla is not someone unknown. He is respected scientist and I recommend everyone who hasn't read more from him, to google it a bit.

I've never heard of him so obviously he's only known in certain circles and those are small circles. I will not google him to read more about him as I have 0 interest to do so. ((just being honest))

p.s I'm not trying to start a fight with you, I am just trying to understand why you believe what you believe

originally posted by: colbe

1% of the priests were accused in the priest scandal, what about the rest and are all the accused guilty? Satan
hates the New Covenant ministerial priesthood. He believes in the grace given. Records show the priest
scandal victims were POSTpubescent males. The world now, the liberal press can't call the priest scandal
what it was, homosexual because they approve of sodomy.

1. Pedophilia and homosexuality are not, I repeat NOT the same thing.

Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

As an expert panel of researchers convened by the National Academy of Sciences noted in a 1993 report: "The distinction between homosexual and heterosexual child molesters relies on the premise that male molesters of male victims are homosexual in orientation. Most molesters of boys do not report sexual interest in adult men, however" (National Research Council, 1993, p. 143, citation omitted).

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

2. Sodomy is not anal sex but rape. Therefore homosexuals do NOT approve of rape.

Records show the priest scandal victims were POSTpubescent males.

Really, because I've read lots about this and I have not encountered a single report of any of the victims of child molestation to be post-pubescent males. They were all children who had not reached puberty. Either way it doesn't matter, molestation is molestation and is very very wrong!!!!! Some of those victims were even murdered to cover up the fact that they were molested.

a reply to: knoledgeispower

Sodomy is not anal sex but rape.

Not according to the dictionary.

sod·om·y (sod-uh-mee)
noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (Source)

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: knoledgeispower

Sodomy is not anal sex but rape.

Not according to the dictionary.

sod·om·y (sod-uh-mee)
noun
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality (Source)

I used to think that too but I was set straight.
User Akragon stated:

You should know the term sodomite is used incorrectly by the religious institutions of the world...

It does not, can not mean gay... the crime of Sodom was not being gay... they were violent rapists

The Abrahamic religions twisted the meaning to promoting hatred of something they didn't understand...

A sodomite is a rapist, not a homosexual

Akragon's statement found here

The word sodomy comes from the bible and is about the town Sodom & the story about the angels coming to Lot to stay with him before God destroyed the town. While the angels were staying with Lot, villagers came and wanted to rape the guys staying with Lot (they didn't know they were angels and thought they were men). How does a man rape another man, through anal so over the years the definition of sodomy went from meaning rapist to anal sex.

Roman Catholic scholar, Mark Jordan in his book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (1997) shows that the term “sodomy” originated in the eleventh century as a new classification of certain ‘clerical sins’. While early church fathers such as St. Ambrose and Origen clearly associate sodomy with inhospitality, by the time of St. Augustine, cultural associations around the word, communicated through secular poetry and legend shifted both its denotative and connotative meanings.

“The bible never links the story of Sodom with homosexuality. To use the Sodom story as evidence that the Bible condemns homosexuality is totally inaccurate. It is an anachronism, projecting later Church interpretation onto the biblical text, which is essentially about hospitality….”

“Even if the story were about lust, it is about rape, not homosexuality. The Sodomites were not “gay”. They were rapists. This is why Lot could offer his daughters in replacement, why the Judges version of the tale actually has a female substitute, and why those few Biblical references to Sodom as being sexually-related speak in general terms rather than specific ones.”

As Jay Michaelson, currently as PhD student in Jewish thought at Hebrew University points out, “The Bible condemns many things in the story of Sodom (lack of hospitality, humiliation of fellow human beings, brutality and violence toward others, pride, decadence, serious breech of human ethical obligations), but homosexuality is not one of them.”

Indeed, as Michaelson explains, the story of Sodom is in a biblical section where hospitality and ethics are central themes – Abraham welcoming three strangers to his tent; Abraham and king Abimelech. “Reading the story of Sodom as being about homosexuality is like reading the story of an axe-murderer and saying it’s about an axe,” concludes Michaelson.

“Sodomy” – a Biblical Word Study that Might Surprise You

Look at the word gay, it didn't originally mean homosexuality.

gay (adj.) Look up gay at Dictionary.com
late 14c., "full of joy, merry; light-hearted, carefree;" also "wanton, lewd, lascivious" (late 12c. as a surname, Philippus de Gay), from Old French gai "joyful, happy; pleasant, agreeably charming; forward, pert" (12c.; compare Old Spanish gayo, Portuguese gaio, Italian gajo, probably French loan-words). Ultimate origin disputed; perhaps from Frankish *gahi (related to Old High German wahi "pretty"), though not all etymologists accept this. Meaning "stately and beautiful; splendid and showily dressed" is from early 14c. The word gay by the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a gay house was a brothel.

The "Dictionary of American Slang" reports that gay (adj.) was used by homosexuals, among themselves, in this sense since at least 1920. Rawson ["Wicked Words"] notes a male prostitute using gay in reference to male homosexuals (but also to female prostitutes) in London's notorious Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889. Ayto ["20th Century Words"] calls attention to the ambiguous use of the word in the 1868 song "The Gay Young Clerk in the Dry Goods Store," by U.S. female impersonator Will S. Hays, but the word evidently was not popularly felt in this sense by wider society until the 1950s at the earliest.

Online Etymology Dictionary: Gay

It makes sense that the church would be the first to disclose. These people are the least likely to believe and therefore the first that need to be told. Believers already know the truth.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Klassified

I just hope they are hot.

Imagine making love to a hot telepathic alien? prrrrrrrrrrr

originally posted by: criticalhit

I wonder what Jesus's main weapon will be? I'm hoping for a staff that shoots fire personally

The TRUTH.


God reigns over His Creation (physical and spiritual beings); even if we were given a period of time to rule ourselves according to His perfect will. He predetermined the outcome to transpire; and His faithful son will execute His truth.

God Bless,

Sodomy as a defines sin translates to unlawful sexual acts.

God Created lawful sexual relations between two human beings in marriage using what He created us to use for intercourse.

Any other sexual form, of our own choosing, in opposition to what was created lawful is called "sodomy" in scripture.

Anal sex, unmarried sex, unwated sex (rape) are all acts of sodomy accordin to scripture.

Choose for yourselves what that means today; I just wanted to clarify exactly what was recorded back then and what those words mean because there is a lot of confusion about it.

God Bless,

a reply to: knoledgeispower

I used to think that too but I was set straight.
User Akragon stated:

I think that I'll take the word of every dictionary over Akragon, lol.

We don't get to redefine existing words in order to fit an agenda. Sodomy does not mean rape (though a rapist might commit sodomy while raping someone, of course.)

so aside from the part about what Akragon said, are you going to completely ignore everything else in that post that tells you what sodomy really means?

Yes words do get changed all the time, I used the example of the word Gay and how it started off not meaning homosexuality but since has had homosexuality included in the definition.