There was an interview done a year or so ago (google it) where a Vatican spokesperson said that they are also looking for signs of life on other planets, aka intelligent life in the universe.

Furthermore, he said that if they find intelligent life on another planet, it in no way conflicts with the bible and their teachings.

WTF?

If the bible says god created man on the 6th day or whatever, wouldn't this be the hugest contradiction in the bible to this date? Not including of course, the end of days, which claimed that men on horses would come on fiery chariots bla bla bla, but thats a fairy tale for another day..

I'm one of the fiercest atheist here, but I don't see how this contradict the Bible at all. The Bible is defined as God's special relationship with humans. Plus the Vatican itself admits the Genesis is metaphorical.

The bible specifically says God created man. He doesnt say, on the 8th day he created life elsewhere in the galaxy.. not to mention the ones that believe the earth is 7000 years old will be faced with a contradiction..

Your line of logic is flawed. First, your attacking the minority of Christians who believe in the 6000-year old Earth theory. Most Catholics do not believe this (it is not de fide); rather, we believe in evolution, as science and faith will never contradict one another. Attack the Catholic faith, not fundamentalist beliefs, when citing something from a Catholic observatory.

Second, just because it is not in the Bible doesn't mean it isn't true. Abortion is wrong, something all Catholics are required to believe, yet it is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible.

On another note, "God created the heavens and the Earth" is a way of saying 'God created everything,' thus life would be included. At any rate, Genesis is not a history book but rather it is written to make a theological point; God is the Creator of all, humans once walked with God, yet they fell and are now slaves to sin (atleast until Christ came).

if its not in the bible, why is it required for them to believe?

i think you are on a slippery slope with that statement. i know its a pro choice fall back but is it wrong when a woman is raped and conceives?

making that blanket statement it a pretty strong accusation. in most cases in life there are extenuating circumstances.

And I mention the 6000 year thing because Christian Fundamentalists are rapidly gaining numbers in the USA, and because these are the things many churchgoers believe.

You also semantically chose to say "god created the heavens and the earth" which now includes man, and life on other planets. Why didn't god specify in the bible that there is life undiscovered on other planets?

Further, you say that "most" christians believe in evolution. However, I don't think that is exactly the case. Some christians go as far as to believe in macroevolution but not microevolution..

I thought you were talking about the Vatican? Vatican believes in evolution, old Earth, and modern science.

He didn't specify because he didn't have to. The Bible is God's relationship with human beings. It doesn't preclude the existence of an alien version of the Bible, which doesn't mention humans. Christians will also tell you God works in mysterious way, and that maybe he intended us to make the discovery by ourselves at some point, and that there was no hurry.

There cannot be any contradiction because nothing in the Bible explicitly says alien life is impossible. You can't proclaim the absence of a fact = a contradiction. The Bible was never meant to be an encyclopedia after all.

Man, I would make a great mythologist.

There are no acceptable 'extenuating circumstances' for abortion, period.

Word of God?

Muhammad himself could come flying through the sky on a unicorn pooping chunks of pure gold out of his ass, and it still wouldn't contradict the bible for 99% of believers.

im going to make an assumption here

you are a male, you have a wife.

if your wife is raped and conceives, you want her to have the child?

me personally, i would not want to deal with having to see a bastard child everyday that would remind me of the awful experience my wife went through. to cause that emotional harm to a person would be ungodly, imo

and if you do not have a problem with that, then you are stronger than i. you would be well suited in a country where women do not have rights, imo

furthermore if it is going to kill the mother it obv would not be an extenuating circumstance? what if not only the mother, but the child would die as well. seems like an extenuating circumstance to me.

I think this is a situation where he/anyone can't give an honest answer. There's not way to predict how you'd feel going through something like that.

He'll probably say he'd want her to keep the child, and he won't be lying saying that, but he should admit that he doesn't know if he'd feel that way if it really happened. (god forbid)

paging stupid...

do not follow...

Ah, sorry...typo.

Meant to say, paging stu pidasso.

He loves discussing that very issue you posed.

oh, i thought i made some crazy claim that has been shown to be irrelevant on the subject or something. ill be the first to admit im not even close to as smart or as versed on these subjects as many posters in RGT, which is why i was confused.

i await stu's response, and i hope that the response is void of well what if one lives. im saying it is a 100% certainty that both mother and child will die

Im waiting for Jerok to answer the question about the rape baby. Because not only is it horrible to the wife and her husband, you're either going to A) lie to that kid about why he doesnt look like his father or; B) tell him his father was a rapist which would traumatize me if I found that out as an adult

according to jerok it does not matter. i dont think anything would change about the claim regardless of the circumstance as far as it looks. life is life and it doesnt matter to jerok how it was spawned.

makes me sad tbh

it makes me want to throw up. if there were indeed a god, and you could speak to him by kneeling over your bed and just talking, I think even he would grant you an abortion pass in this instance. it is really a shame that someone can allow themselves to be so indoctrinated by a book of fables as to let a child come into this world under those terms.

very much agreed. it would make me sick if it were law and i was married to a woman who was forced to bear this child. so disgusting

Is it any less of a human because it was conceived as a result of rape or incest?

Now, if you hold that abortion is not wrong, then there is no particular problem for you to abort the baby, whether it is conceived in a willful sexual act or not. However, if you believe that abortion is wrong, then it's wrong for reasons other than the circumstances of conception, and this exception does not provide anything useful to the conversation except to point out that the declaration of a moral position can sometimes entail the existence of a moral dilemma.

If one believes that abortion is disgusting, then it's disgusting either way. But one is disgusting in a way that destroys life and one is disgusting in a way that preserves it. So the overriding theme of the decision is not the disgusting-ness of it, but instead a view of what is the better ("more right") thing to do with a bad situation.

You think the argument here is that you'll someday have to tell the kid? Do you think the kid would become suicidal at that point, and wish he/she had never lived? I'm as pro-choice as you are, but this argument is awful.

the disgusting comment was directed to a woman being forced to bear a child she does not wish to, esp in a case of rape.

i am very much pro choice


if you look at your last statement though, there will be times where not only is one way preserving life it is also destroying life, not in the literal sense. ie woman is forced to have child, babys life is preserved, her life is destroyed. vice versa if you "preserve" the mothers life and allow the abortion then obv the babys is destroyed. in a case like that something will always be destroyed

i do understand your points though directed toward that circumstance. if one believes its wrong, then its wrong. doesnt really matter the circumstance. but, how about if there were a situation where it was a 100% certainty that both mother and baby would die if not aborted? i suppose the only way around it would be to say its ok because the baby has no chance of survival anyways, but nevertheless it would still be an abortion.