Pope Francis says baptism is for all, even Martians

Nick the Pilot

Nick the Pilot

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
94
Points
48
Location
Tokyo, Japan
Pope Francis says baptism is for all, even Martians | The Japan Times

"Pope Francis on Monday declared that everyone has the right to be baptized, even aliens, should they come knocking on the church’s door.

"Christians cannot “close the door” to all those who seek baptism even if they are “green men, with a long nose and big ears, like children draw,” the pope said at his daily mass, according to Vatican Radio."

(cont.)
 
Just my cynical nature I suppose, but seems the church is trying to up the collection plate proceeds. I mean why limit yourself to earth when there's a whole solar system out there to raid? :D
 
I don't know of any sanctioned church doctrine regarding the Baptism of animals, but I've Christened a few on the request of their owners and I know a few other ministers who have done the same. So far, haven't dipped any Martians though!
 
I do like Pope Francis ...
He connects w/people well & has a great sense of humor!
 
The more interesting take on this story, for me, is that the topic is being addressed Siriusly ... err, seriously. ;)

Not that I think our Friends from other planets will necessary want, need or be the least bit interested in receiving Baptism from Pope Francis, or anyone else.

But just as Jesus received this Rite from John the Forerunner in recognition and affirmation of a prophecy, why should it be so strange for an Ambassador or a delegation - from Mars or wherever - to consent ... perhaps in just the same accord?

Zagreus/Taijasi [andrew]
 
Well it's an off-the-cuff, humorous comment, but then again, Francis is Jesuit, so you can pretty well assure yourself that beneath the banter there's a "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" comment.
 
Andrew,

According to Theosophy, baptism refers to a person's eligibility for enlightenment. But enlightenment is only for humans, not for animals, and not for humans already at a level higher than the human level.

Regarding Martians, only Martians who were at the human level would be eligible for enlightenment. I'm quite sure that, if there are Martians at the human level, that they are striving towards enlightenment just as we are.
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Andrew,

According to Theosophy, baptism refers to a person's eligibility for enlightenment. But enlightenment is only for humans, not for animals, and not for humans already at a level higher than the human level.

Regarding Martians, only Martians who were at the human level would be eligible for enlightenment. I'm quite sure that, if there are Martians at the human level, that they are striving towards enlightenment just as we are.
Click to expand...

I quite agree, Nick. The symbolism of Baptism in the Christian Rite is for me the same as it has been taught in Theosophical teachings. It treats of the astral plane, or `watery world' of our emotions ... and of course, those of animals, ETs, or any other creature native to or experienced with such a habitat. Most importantly, the 2nd Initiation marks a stage through which all human beings - and presumably those of other evolutions as well - must pass ... and involves the purification of the little self, such that the Soul or Higher Self may receive the focus. As the Forerunner put it, "[He] must increase, for must decrease." Such universal, telling words ...

I do indeed believe that all planets bearing humanities of intelligent stages of life become steered by their own Logos, and the systemic Logos, toward enlightenment. We have much to learn about the moons of Jupiter, which planet is our own Logos - sort of looking into the future, into System Three [Ray One], just as Pluto evidences the remains of System One [Ray Three]. In time, I expect science to teach this as a sort of A-B-C, so to speak, yet perhaps we'll only understand these aspects of Stellar evolution once we have learned more about human - including reincarnation.

Won't it be a tremendous step forward in our own, soundly-scientific and then-spiritual state of society when Earth, at large, has accepted such basics as the Purpose and Plan of our own planetary evolution? And I don't mean that we `take the blue pill' [or whichever one it was Neo took] and wake up out of our nescience overnight, as we know that this isn't quite how it happens.

But I do think it would make for a curious wrinkle if ET landed, `Day the Earth Stood Still'-like, or somewhat, and basically said, "Take us to a publicly-televised, press-attended summit of your LEADERS"? Yeah, a little early for this, perhaps, but I mean exactly what I say. I do believe that from the Watch of Shambhala, the `Father's House,' our own Earth Logos/Sanat Kumara keeps close supervision of all interplanetary & intrasolar craft and visitors. Some, we may speculate, do not use `craft' at all as we would normally think of this notion. In arupa worlds, what the hell's a UFO? ;)

Any thoughts?
 
Zagreus said:
The symbolism of Baptism in the Christian Rite is for me the same as it has been taught in Theosophical teachings...

...Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
It might appear that way to you, but really, it's not that at all.
 
Andrew,

We must also define the term "being saved," According to Theosophy, it means being saved from being forced into any more reincarnations. But in present-day Christianity, the term has taken on quite a different meaning! In Theosophy, Jesus doesn't save us, we save ourselves through our own hard work. It is said that achieving enlightenment is the hardest thing we will ever do, and this makes a lot of sense to me.
 
Thomas said:
It might appear that way to you, but really, it's not that at all.
Click to expand...

I think what you mean is, Baptism means something different to you ... even to a lot of Christians.

Ask Jesus, or the Christ, the significance, and get back to us on it, okay? ;)

Point is, My interpretation is ROCK-solid, for me, and I haven't the faintest shadow of a DOUBT about it.

Now I don't dispute that a different meaning has EVOLVED over 2100 years.

Thus, as a child, I was Baptized into the Lutheran church, but I was not dunked like a doughnut, nor was a sprinkler/spritzer used ...

You see, the Rite will vary, and it certainly symbolizes purity, yet its significance predates the Christ, and is tied in with the chrestos - the candidate undergoing the initiatory rite. It is about our own commitment to, and determination along, the road to greater purity, which is why I kind of like the idea of baptizing a conscious, thinking adult ... and not an infant, to whom the rite means absolutely zilch for many years (if ever or at all).

Martians, as far as I'm aware, really don't care about - or want to be a part of - the Roman Catholic Church. They really don't. I don't think they are after membership in the Theosophical Society, either. To try to make something smaller than it is, or pull in the proverbial nets of one's fishermen, is a bit daft.

Instead of acknowledging that I know what I'm talking about, and that what I'm trying to do is underscore the more universal aspects of a thing, I think you ought to stop while you're ahead. Otherwise, I have to point out that the current Christian Rite of Baptism really doesn't hold much snuff to that which the Baptizer Himself [John the Forerunner] was practicing, and certainly not to the true Initiatory Rite which is held (only performable) by the World Teacher, or Bodhisattva [Christ]. And on that, there's no flexibility. No more, at least, than I have come to expect from certain Catholics ... ;)

Again, consult the Oracle, and see what you find. But don't get mixed up, by your own damn mind.

And yeah, I know this discussion is on `secular' ... so I kind of think all this claptrap really doesn't mean that much. Really the point is, yes there are Martians (and other globes within our own Solar System with evolving intelligent life upon them, ensouled lifeforms - like us, give or take) ... and yes, the Catholic Church would baptize them if they requested it.

In my mind, that's enough to make the mind reel ... but then, I don't doubt the current Pope, his intent, his methodology [for as much as I know of it, I see the Light - and just hope the Curia won't poison him as they did poor Albino Luciano] or his utterances. FINALLY we have sense & sanity in the Papacy, and several, I mean SEVERAL predictions & prophecies can begin to be fulfilled. Pope Francis has wasted no time in doing the good Works of the Lord ...

Whether or not people are being helped much for that big upcoming landing in Trafalgar Square or not (or wherever) ... that's what I'm really interested in. ;)
 
Nick the Pilot said:
Andrew,

We must also define the term "being saved," According to Theosophy, it means being saved from being forced into any more reincarnations. But in present-day Christianity, the term has taken on quite a different meaning! In Theosophy, Jesus doesn't save us, we save ourselves through our own hard work. It is said that achieving enlightenment is the hardest thing we will ever do, and this makes a lot of sense to me.
Click to expand...

Of course.

I know that quite a few things are screwed up about modern Churchianity.

Christ Himself cannot, and will not fix - all that is wrong with it.

But I do believe that as ET [MAY] land(s) ... some of the broken stuff will be brought more carefully into the scrutiny, the light, of reason and common sense. And maybe ET doesn't in the next few years, but that doesn't mean we can't work on Reform - as always - wherever, whenever, possible.

The crap about "Jesus is gonna save us from ourselves" will go out the window once folks realize that no, not even God can do that. Love, true Forgiveness, and the embracing of a higher Purpose ... is something available to, and even asked of, us ALL. Doesn't matter your background, current beliefs - or lack thereof, etc.

I truly don't worry about the Catholic or Christian whose entire worldview falls apart, since after all, they had the opportunity to question, go deeper into the meaning of it all (as Krishnamurti might invite us to do), and meditate on the relevance of the [Christian] Gospel for themselves, and others.

If you are given a nice necktie or bracelet accessory, but you never wear it, or perhaps you admire it so greatly that you nail it to a plaque and hang that plaque on your wall to display for all the people in your life to see ... then first of all, how the hell is that making good use of the original gift at all? And second, aren't you almost insulting the gift-giver, who did indeed intend for you to wear the tie or the bracelet?

Ah, if only Jesus WAS some silly ornament to wear around your neck or arm, or to show off to your friends of similar ilk. Oh hey, that's a nice Jesus, but look at this one over here which my wife gave me last month for our anniversary! Etc. :rolleyes:

And that's just what happens, which is why - with dear old Bertrand - I am NOT a Christian in the modern sense. Thank GOD for that! :)
 
Zagreus said:
I think what you mean is, Baptism means something different to you ... even to a lot of Christians.
Click to expand...
No, I mean there are aspects to the Christian Rite of Baptism that you seem unaware of.

Zagreus said:
Point is, My interpretation is ROCK-solid, for me, and I haven't the faintest shadow of a DOUBT about it.
Click to expand...
OK. No point talking to a closed door. ;)
 
Thomas said:
No, I mean there are aspects to the Christian Rite of Baptism that you seem unaware of.
Click to expand...
Yes, probably. And certainly I'm interested, even if I have my own, functional, current understanding which works just fine. It doesn't mean I know or understand everything there is to grasp about the subject, even if the Forerunner is real, living man, a Teacher to me ... incarnate now, just as he was then, and even if folks don't know him as Elijah (or as John) any better than they recognized him as Elijah 2100 years ago. But of course, Christ talked about that.

Thomas said:
OK. No point talking to a closed door. ;)
Click to expand...
Correct. At the same time, if you feel we're on the other side of something we should both be on the same side of (or agree about) ... try whispering through the `closed' door. You might be surprised at what the communication yields!

What I meant is that you can't convince me to abandon my current understanding in exchange for one that makes no sense, or less sense. Doesn't really matter the subject, whether it's baptism, the Christian liturgy, or what makes UFOs go. In each area, there is surely plenty left for me to learn.

As much as we can help each other (within the limits of karma), I believe that's part of what we're supposed to do. I think it's why we're here!
 
Some fun exchanges here, though most everyone missed the point of the article entirely. Namely that Pope Francis was making a joke about Martians in order to make a very down to earth point. One of his main concerns seemed to be about kids:

...Francis has stressed that it (baptism) should not be refused, especially to children whose parents may be breaking Church rules such as living together as an unmarried couple.
 
GK,

It does bring up some interesting scenarios, like a parent taking a child to church to get baptized, when the parent can't get baptized in the same church! (But I imagine this almost never happens in the real world.)
 
Zagreus said:
What I meant is that you can't convince me to abandon my current understanding in exchange for one that makes no sense, or less sense.
Click to expand...
OK. I'm not asking you to abandon anything.

All I can do, and all I try to do, is try to suggest that maybe my doctrine is not a tissue of lies and errors, fictions and fabrications, as you insist it is.

All I'm trying to do is explain it, as it seems evident to me you've got the wrong end of the stick about what you think we believe.

By the same token, the interpretation of the Christian doctrine you offer me, falls a long way short, it seems to me, and speaks of matters confined to the manifestations of triunes in the formal cosmos, whereas the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as it is stated in the Tradition addresses the meta-cosmic, the nature of the Divine in and to Itself, not the Divine in and to the world.

So for me to abandon my understanding would require me to settle for less; less theologically, and less metaphysically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top