Evidence of ET?

[Jehanne]

ET and Christ.

Evolution has already dismantled the entire enterprise: no Adam and Eve, no fall, no original sin, no need for a redeemer. This is why the RCC, despite its reasonable acceptance of modern science, must still maintain the assertion of a literal Adam and Eve. That's enough, but ET would make it more absurd.

Non-humans on this planet are exempt, will intelligent extra terrestrials also be exempt? The only other option would be to convince the flock that the the fall of non-existent people somehow imbued ET with original sin requiring redemption. If we were ever able to communicate I'm sure they will shit themselves laughing that people take this seriously.

Well stated!  (In fact, "Bravo"!!)

[Edwardo Piet]

I disagree with the OP.

There's no evidence of my Evil Twin at all.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

ET and Christ.

Evolution has already dismantled the entire enterprise: no Adam and Eve, no fall, no original sin, no need for a redeemer. This is why the RCC, despite its reasonable acceptance of modern science, must still maintain the assertion of a literal Adam and Eve. That's enough, but ET would make it more absurd.

Non-humans on this planet are exempt, will intelligent extra terrestrials also be exempt? The only other option would be to convince the flock that the the fall of non-existent people somehow imbued ET with original sin requiring redemption. If we were ever able to communicate I'm sure they will shit themselves laughing that people take this seriously.

We can draw on this for a new rule: The more that is learned through science, the more absurdity will be required to defend religious doctrines. It's already bizarrely absurd, and we ain't seen nothing yet!

[Ravenshire]

Oh you mean it was bullshit when it started but NOW they've got it right?

That was BS, yes. But like I said. Everything that is not a doctrinal teaching on faith and morals is subject to change as times change and as we learn more about the world around us. The Church only claims infallibility on official matters of faith and morals... example being the divinity of Jesus, the immaculate conception, life after death, etc.

Getting back to the topic at hand though.... The Church and mainstream Christianity in general are not at all in conflict with ET life. The first time I heard about there being any conflict was in this *atheist* forum lol. Emphasis on atheist. That should tell you something. 

(Oh, and I am speaking in the present, fyi.) 

So, the church only claims infallibility in areas where it's claims cannot be proven, right or wrong. How convenient...

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Oh you mean it was bullshit when it started but NOW they've got it right?

That was BS, yes. But like I said. Everything that is not a doctrinal teaching on faith and morals is subject to change as times change and as we learn more about the world around us. The Church only claims infallibility on official matters of faith and morals... example being the divinity of Jesus, the immaculate conception, life after death, etc.

Getting back to the topic at hand though.... The Church and mainstream Christianity in general are not at all in conflict with ET life. The first time I heard about there being any conflict was in this *atheist* forum lol. Emphasis on atheist. That should tell you something. 

(Oh, and I am speaking in the present, fyi.) 

The point which you are missing is that the issue isn't what most Catholic clergy and their followers believe now regarding basic astronomy.

Repeat, Sweetheart (which I do mean sincerely, I know you really are a good-hearted person :-) ), we wouldn't be having this argument if the problem was about what any Christians currently believe regarding earth-sun interactions.

The problem is the character of your religious institution (not to play favorites for other Xtians) since it first came to power in people's minds. What they say of the bible is not what they treat it as in practice. They first insisted that it said one thing, and those ideas were challenged by science. When it became a critical threat to the Pope's hold on power, their first response was a barbaric campaign of violence! When society changed despite papal threats, and violence would no longer suit The Church, one of his successors finally had to change his position on his organization's official interpretation of of his holy book, and of course it could not be any different from what the scientists had proven centuries before! If it weren't for the fact that religious ideas must always follow science, whether it's geocentrism/heliocentrism, spontaneous generation of common vermin species vs. biogenesis, evil spirits vs. microbial pathogens as the cause of illness, or etc. ad nauseum - if it weren't for this consistent backpedaling on their original dogmas on that said infallible book, then you may be able to get away with it being their mistaken interpretations instead of the obvious. The hard, cold truth is that church leaders are just spineless chameleons who protect themselves above all, and they do it by blending into their current culture as best as they can without causing a mass exodus from their pews.

Now, flash forward to Francis, who now expresses an openness to gays which is so lauded by his liberal followers, but he won't dare promote gay marriage, abortion, nor contraception for fear of losing his most conservative tithers. Here it is again demonstrated how progress in a powerful religious organization doesn't really amount to anything better than politics as usual. It's a political system unto itself, it got really good at doing that in the dark old centuries when it's political power ranked above that of European kings, and it is very naive the way people presume that it would have taken the step down to what it is today if it weren't forced into that position at the point of the sword.