Jonathan H. B. Lobl

You're right of course. On both counts. I don't want to argue over obvious reality, with Dan. Life is too short. I'm too bored. Happy New Year.

Yes.

You could surmise that. You would be wrong. Still, feel free to make your baseless assumptions.

An addendum: Dan, this is what you said to Mark. "You certainly can share some of the same moral values. My only point was that it seemed illogical to disparage and denigrate a person who personified many of the same moral attributes that they claim to embrace?" If you want Jesus to be a personification -- you are agreeing that he is mythology. Just like Thor.

Allow me to clarify. It is not the Bible verses that Pete is sick and tired of. It is you -- quoting the Bible -- at him -- that Pete is sick and tired of.

This entry has become the current point of contention. Jesus as the personification of various virtues and qualities. Jesus as the personification of love, peace, charity, etc. To my understanding, All of the gods are personifications. I think a good example would be the Mighty Thor. As a Thunder god, Thor personifies the chaos of the storm. Thor is also a war god. Thor personifies the chaos of battle. Is there an actual Thor? Running around the Earth with his mighty hammer? No. Which brings us back to Jesus. I have no objection to saying that Jesus personifies love -- in the same way that Thor personifies chaos. Neither one of them actually walked the Earth, in physical reality. That is what personification means.

Just so.

Does it matter?

I'm aware of that. In the past, scientists have found ways to do the impossible. They may yet find a way to do FTL. Possibly by warping space. That does not mean FTL will be practical.

I went back looking for exactly what Dan said and what he was responding too. This is what I found on page 7. ." So stop reading here if your bored with biblical references that substantiate my position, its the dogma Jonathan warned you about" "3. since Pete is so offended by the bible," Dan twists things around. I was explaining to Dan, that Pete was not offended by the Bible. It was Dan's use of the Bible that offended Pete. Look how Dan twisted that. Only in Dan's mind, would I be warning Pete about Dan's winning dogma. It's all there on page 7. If you can sift through Dan's manure.

I'm considering the possibilities. Without faster than light travel (FTL) -- a simple visit could take hundreds of years. Tough on organic life. Not so much for A.I. Even if FTL is possible, it might be so costly or difficult, that it would only be used for high need. Nothing routine. Even for an alien culture with super high tech; not everything that is possible will be practical.

What kind of evidence is God sending us?

Just so.

Pete: There are many fictional characters -- from literature and legend -- who personify various characteristics. Jesus is on that list. Along with Captain Ahab, Robbin Hood, King Arthur, Dracula, Batman, Superman, Mosses, Spiderman, Long John Silver, Moby Dick, etc. Do we need to repudiate any of them?

1. All my life, Christians have been preaching at me. I have heard. Why do you suppose I never joined up? 2. Yes. 3. Pete is not offended by the Bible. Pete is offended by your use of the Bible. 4. Pete and I are both aware of the many contradictions in Scripture. There is no need to assemble them for us. 5. Yes. More of God not knowing. 6. Back to the perfect plan. I read the Book. They all fail.

You are expecting Dan, to engage in non-dogmatic thought, about God. I do it also. We live in hope.

First, I said it could work. Not that it would work. Second, If the aliens are a predator species, neither our beliefs nor our non-beliefs will matter. For that matter, if the aliens are inclined to being peaceful -- neither our beliefs, nor non-beliefs, will count against us. Finally, if the aliens are Atheists, there is at least a chance that they are rational or reasonable. This is unpredictable. Atheists only agree on one thing. Only the aliens would know, what they do believe -- or think -- about anything. On the other hand, if the aliens are Monotheists -- there is a chance, that they will consider us to be the wrong kind of Monotheist. In which case, things could get ugly. Look at Earth history. First, the missionaries show up -- to teach the one true God. Then, things get nasty for the locals, who don't join up. Sometimes, even then. Look what the Catholic Church did in Mexico. Or Japan. If they resemble Buddhist monks -- teaching ideas of Dharma -- it could be a lot of fun. Maybe not good ideas, or useful -- but interesting. Or they could be great ideas. Until or unless it happens -- it's all pure speculation. First contact might not even be with organic life. It could be with their A.I.

Welcome back. I'm looking at your name. Is there a connection to the Rosecrucians?

A Pagan, who venerates Nature, might be compatible with alien visitors. If both sides have many gods, that could also work. If both sides are Atheist, that could also work.

You do not hear anything, except what you want to hear. That is why Atheist voices confuse you. When you learn how to listen, you will hear us.

I would like to open this thread up, to an additional line of thought. What does Earth have -- in the way of religion -- that might be of interest to an outsider? Buddhism might be of interest to an ET. There is nothing species specific about the Buddhist teachings. A Buddhist monk could have a discussion with anyone, about the nature of suffering and releasing desire. What about the various religions of Earth, would an ET find interesting?

I'm not in a position to argue. For now, I'm going to say maybe. If the aliens show up, we can ask. We have all seen drawings of the "Greys". They do look a lot like the classic goblin.

This is good. I think we have similar values. Values is the word. Not beliefs. IMO We value love, friendship, kindness, honor, ethics, wisdom, doing what's right, etc. These are the things that we find meaningful. Belief? Not so much.

God, the All Knowing, would know in advance, every change that God will ever make. That means there's no change. Worse, the All Knowing, would know, in advance, every thought that God will ever have. That means that God has no free will. Clearly, the people who created this doctrine of All Knowing, had not thought it through.