Ancient aliens

It's never THAT easy!

Montana Smith said:
Faith /absolute truth necessitates a body of indisputable beliefs.

Those dogmatic beliefs cannot be doubted.
The divisions of dogma follow the lines of the divisions of faith. Dogmas can be (1) general or special; (2) material or formal; (3) pure or mixed; (4) symbolic or non-symbolic; (5) and they can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.

(1) General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant for mankind and transmitted from the Apostles; while special dogmas are the truths revealed in private revelations. Special dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all; they are not revealed truths transmitted from the Apostles; nor are they defined or proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful generally.

(2) Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (or Catholic, or "in relation to us", quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term.

(3) Pure dogmas are those which can be known only from revelation, as the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.; while mixed dogmas are truths which can be known from revelation or from philosophical reasoning as the existence and attributes of God. Both classes are dogmas in the strict sense, when considered as revealed and defined.

(4) Dogmas contained in the symbols or creeds of the Church are called symbolic; the remainder are non-symbolic. Hence all the articles of the Apostles' Creed are dogmas ? but not all dogmas are called technically articles of faith, though an ordinary dogma is sometimes spoken of as an article of faith.

(5) Finally, there are dogmas belief in which is absolutely necessary as a means to salvation, while faith in others is rendered necessary only by Divine precept; and some dogmas must be explicitly known and believed, while with regard to others implicit belief is sufficient.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
The divisions of dogma follow the lines of the divisions of faith. Dogmas can be (1) general or special; (2) material or formal; (3) pure or mixed; (4) symbolic or non-symbolic; (5) and they can differ according to their various degrees of necessity.

(1) General dogmas are a part of the revelation meant for mankind and transmitted from the Apostles; while special dogmas are the truths revealed in private revelations. Special dogmas, therefore, are not, strictly speaking, dogmas at all; they are not revealed truths transmitted from the Apostles; nor are they defined or proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful generally.

(2) Dogmas are called material (or Divine, or dogmas in themselves, in se) when abstraction is made from their definition by the Church, when they are considered only as revealed; and they are called formal (or Catholic, or "in relation to us", quoad nos) when they are considered both as revealed and defined. Again, it is evident that material dogmas are not dogmas in the strict sense of the term.

(3) Pure dogmas are those which can be known only from revelation, as the Trinity, Incarnation, etc.; while mixed dogmas are truths which can be known from revelation or from philosophical reasoning as the existence and attributes of God. Both classes are dogmas in the strict sense, when considered as revealed and defined.

(4) Dogmas contained in the symbols or creeds of the Church are called symbolic; the remainder are non-symbolic. Hence all the articles of the Apostles' Creed are dogmas ? but not all dogmas are called technically articles of faith, though an ordinary dogma is sometimes spoken of as an article of faith.

(5) Finally, there are dogmas belief in which is absolutely necessary as a means to salvation, while faith in others is rendered necessary only by Divine precept; and some dogmas must be explicitly known and believed, while with regard to others implicit belief is sufficient.

Stop!

You're making it worse! :p
 
Montana Smith said:
Stop!

You're making it worse! :p

Sorry, but even the secular word changes year to year. You know better than others that words have multiple meanings.:p

Not to mention all the new words added...

Now to bake your noodle, The Pope is only considered "infallable" when he speaks "ex cathedra" regarding faith and morals.

Which, knowing how you love simple equations :)p ), means everything else is fallable...
 
Last edited:

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
all this talk about Dogma and Serendipity makes me want to suck my thumb...

news-dogma2.jpg
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Sorry, but even the secular word changes year to year. You know better than others that words have multiple meanings.:p

Not to mention all the new words added...

You're not wrong there.

This page ( http://bible.cc/romans/14-23.htm ) is just on one verse. Where we have historians challenging each other, and then ancient alien theorists/believers challenging the mainstream historians, divisions or camps are created.

When those of faith challenge one another over verses of the Bible, various denominations arise. And then there are all the other religions, too. That's a lot of absolute truths competing with one another at varying levels.

For much of it the evidence lies in a single original text (or rather a collection of texts by different authors). Yet that collection has been interpreted in different ways. It's hard enough to pin down the validity of any historical text, let alone one that deals with things outside the natural world.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Now to bake your noodle, The Pope is only considered "infallable" when he speaks "ex cathedra" regarding faith and morals.

Which, knowing how you love simple equations :)p ), means everything else is fallable...

The simplest equations are the best. :p

But this isn't get back on topic. And we seem to be short of one alien theorist.

Pale Horse said:
all this talk about Dogma and Serendipity makes me want to suck my thumb...

news-dogma2.jpg


Cool move. I could be dogmatic about Salma. ;)
 
Last edited:
Montana Smith said:
When those of faith challenge one another over verses of the Bible, various denominations arise. And then there are all the other religions, too. That's a lot of absolute truths competing with one another at varying levels.
I only mention it because Ancient Alien Theory (and other related ilk) can be easily substituted for "verses of the Bible" ect.

...and in trying to avoid rigid single definitions while trying to pin down a rigid single definition or unified theory of everything!:hat:

Worthy of another post!:D
Pale Horse said:
...and you say I'm wicked!
 
Last edited:

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
That's one thing off the list. Now mankind just needs to stop believing in all the other things of which there is no proof...

If we really put our backs onto it, I'm optimistic that we can all get there before lunch. That means we can get a good head start in the afternoon towards global peace.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
That's one thing off the list. Now mankind just needs to stop believing in all the other things of which there is no proof...

If we really put our backs onto it, I'm optimistic that we can all get there before lunch. That means we can get a good head start in the afternoon towards global peace.

I like your style, Finn!
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Mickiana said:
I hope Matt has forsaken the discussion. It was getting nowhere.

These types of discussions rarely do. Especially on the internet. While you're awaiting further input from deMille, here's a few other points to ponder and debate amongst yourselves.

building-grid-khufu-pyramid-7-ole-bryn.jpg


New Pyramid Theory: Khufu's Great Pyramid, its Building Grid, the Number 7 and the 'Diamond Matrix'


Bryn says that studying the plans from the thirty oldest Egyptian pyramids whilst keeping these two questions in mind, he discovered a precision system that made it possible for the Egyptians to reach the pyramid’s last and highest point – the apex point – with an impressive degree of accuracy.

“The Egyptians invented the modern building grid, by separating the structure’s measuring system from the physical building itself, thus introducing tolerance, as it is called in today’s engineering and architectural professions,” says Bryn.

There are larger images available here, and you can read the the paper here. And if any of our European friends can get to Trondheim they can visit The Apex Point from September 13th to October 1st. The exhibition is an official part of the program to celebrate the centenary (1910-2010) of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

A book will also be forthcoming on the subject.

There's also an excellent satellite image of the Giza Plateau here.

A brief, but "Lehnered" opinion.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r4L6A-lBPyk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r4L6A-lBPyk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 

Matt deMille

New member
Parrot said:
Has Matt completely forsaken this discussion now?

Actually, I was simply out of town for a few days (personal stuff).

Mickiana said:
I hope Matt has forsaken the discussion. It was getting nowhere.

However, I believe I will forsake this discussion, given how it's turned into a debate about faith. And, even when it does manage to stay to topic, it's still weighed down by some folks who simply cannot accept possibility nor admit to being even possibly mistaken. It's a rigged argument and that is why it indeed goes nowhere.

As before, if someone wants to carry on the conversation privately, through messages, I'm still open to that.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Matt deMille said:
Actually, I was simply out of town for a few days (personal stuff).
Well, that's a relief. I was wondering if you had electrokinetically fried your computer due to all the frustration this thread has caused you. (Don't take this as a cheap-shot or an insult because you've said your alien visitations unlocked this psychic ability and that it's happened before.) Good to know your computer hasn't exploded yet.:D
Matt deMille said:
The experiences also unlocked limited psychic ability. I have a history (and documentation to prove it) or causing light fixtures to explode, electronics to fail, and other crazy stuff in my presence. I seem to be overly electrically charged. I've been to the hospital before for causing a soda bottle to explode just be looking at the damn thing (and this was in a supermarket, so there were plenty of witnesses).

Bottom line: Years of counseling with a dozen doctors only ended with the same, unanimous conclusion: This isn't a fantasy, I'm not making it up, my story comes from memory, the emotional responses to the trauma are real, and certainly the exploding lights and computers are real too.
Matt deMille said:
I'm left with a higher charge of electrical energy, I guess. I can't control it, except by controlling my temper. Things always seem to explode when I'm really pissed off or really nervous.
 

Parrot

New member
Matt deMille said:
However, I believe I will forsake this discussion, given how it's turned into a debate about faith. And, even when it does manage to stay to topic, it's still weighed down by some folks who simply cannot accept possibility nor admit to being even possibly mistaken. It's a rigged argument and that is why it indeed goes nowhere.

As before, if someone wants to carry on the conversation privately, through messages, I'm still open to that.

Well, if that's the only option you're leaving open, then I'll take it. Send me a PM and let me know if you've found any modern UFO sightings that resemble any descriptions in the Bible.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
hmm. The Bible and Aliens.

Seem to me, that if the events of Revelations are to be believed, (or Ezekiel, or Daniel, or Thessalonians)...the non-believers will need a convenient way to explain why 1 billion people suddenly left the earth.

Aliens is as plausible as any, anymore. For the non-believers anyway.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
hmm. The Bible and Aliens.

Seem to me, that if the events of Revelations are to be believed, (or Ezekiel, or Daniel, or Thessalonians)...the non-believers will need a convenient way to explain why 1 billion people suddenly left the earth.

Aliens is as plausible as any, anymore. For the non-believers anyway.

Future aliens are more plausible than ancient aliens, since we don't have evidence of any future contact yet. ;)

Matt deMille said:
And, even when it does manage to stay to topic, it's still weighed down by some folks who simply cannot accept possibility nor admit to being even possibly mistaken.

Would you include yourself in that description, Matt? I have always accepted possibility, and would of course admit to being mistaken - that's the nature of investigation. And that's why this thread turned to a discussion of faith - faith cannot accept another possibilty, nor admit to being possibly mistaken, otherwise it wouldn't be faith anymore, but doubt.

Matt deMille said:
It's a rigged argument and that is why it indeed goes nowhere.

Rigged in what way, Matt? Every poster here can attempt to rig the results, but I suspect that none of us agree 100% with one another. If we did, then there wouldn't be much to debate anywhere across these boards. It's only our differences that broaden our understanding, and challenge our own perceptions.
 
Montana Smith said:
Would you include yourself in that description, Matt? I have always accepted possibility, and would of course admit to being mistaken - that's the nature of investigation. And that's why this thread turned to a discussion of faith - faith cannot accept another possibilty, nor admit to being possibly mistaken, otherwise it wouldn't be faith anymore, but doubt.
Agreed...but in all fairness, a point about the futility of faith vs proof led to clarifying the definition of faith, (I think we've all discussed what constitutes proof quite extensively), ultimately its an attempt to stay on topic.

Matt deMille said:
However, I believe I will forsake this discussion, given how it's turned into a debate about faith.
You believe, finally after all that! But there's evidence to the contrary, indeed in this very thread: you'll be back...albeit on your own terms,(read rigged).
 
Top