UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

The betrayal(s) of the gods: the UFO connection

That God, or The Almighty Intelligence, if it exists, has betrayed mankind, in whole, and humans individually, is obvious, despite the disregard by religious ignoramuses.

God (which I’ll use as the epithet for convenience) is the fount of Evil, as Aristotle outlined in his “Captain of the ship” analogy, which even Thomas Aquinas couldn’t debunk.

Question 49, Article 2 ff. in Summa Theologica:

Object 3. Further, as is said by the Philosopher [Aristotle], the cause of both the safety and danger of he ship is the same. But God is the cause of the safety of all things. Therefore  He is the cause of all perdition and of all evil.

Aquinas answers … “But the evil which consists in the corruption of some things is reduced to God as the cause.”

The defense of God then follows a convoluted discourse that doesn’t let God off the hook, regardless of Aquinas’ brilliance, with support from Augustine.

Carl Jung’s God didn’t consist of a Trinity but, as defined by Jung’s predilection for Gnostic belief, God is a Quaternity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Satan (or Evil).

For definitive explanations about the concept of Satan, see The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels [Vintage Books/Random House, Inc. NY, 1995] and The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity by Jeffrey Burton Russell [Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1977] plus Giving the Devil His Due [Newsweek, August 30, 1982].

The Gnostic view of Satan (or Evil) can be found in many Gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi texts found in 1945, Egypt.

The early Church euphemized the concept of Evil delineated by the Gnostics by separating out, or anthropomorphizing, God’s evil nature and calling it Satan.

(Ufologists and paranormalists do the same thing by attributing the Evil nature of God to a separate being: The Trickster.)

What is disturbing, for me (and others of a theological bent) is how blatant God’s indifference or actual acts of Evil reported in The Hebrew Bible and Old Testament are.

But a survey of history, aside from religious texts, recounts a massive amount of Evil deeds abided by God: the death and servitude of the Jews (the Hebrew peoples, God’s so-called “chosen people”), the martyrdom of early Christians, and the man-incurred deaths of Saints: Jeanne d’Arc, Anthony plus the most horrendous act of deliberate indifference by God: The Holocaust.

God has betrayed His people time and again, and no amount of academic/theological rumination can eliminate the obvious: God has betrayed everyone, even Himself, in the form of Jesus/Christ as clarified by Jung is his Answer to Job.

But now to UFOs and what witnesses of that phenomenon have experienced…

UFO writers, Steiger and Vallee among them, have often, without the insipid Trickster label, allowed that maybe there is an Intelligence that has engaged in hoodwinking witnesses with ploys of bizarre kinds, like giving pancakes to an observer (The
Joe Simonton /Eagle River Case of April 1961) or offering guidance about the origin (homebase) of UFOs/flying saucers (the alleged Star Map of Betty Hill) or the Contactee sites from which flying saucers derive (Swedenborg/Saturn, William Magoon/Mars, Dana Howard/Venus, Frank Stranges/Venus, and so on).

Of course, the Contactees, as Nick Redfern covered in his book by that title, were fraudulent, as Vallee insists, but that was also the conclusion about Joan of Arc by the Church.

Spanish UFO researcher Jose Antonio Caravaca has provided a panoply of odd UFO encounters he says were instigated by an “external agent” – the idea similar to what the early Bible writers ascribed to God.

UFOs, all by themselves, without the patina of a God or obtuse aliens can be seen as a betrayal by the phenomenon unto itself; that is, the mystery remains clouded by erratic or queer behavior, as if directed by a force or forces out to fool human witnesses.

But to what end?

That’s what theologians have been dealing with when it comes to the supposed deity and sci-fi writers cope with when they incur a super intelligence.

The betrayal(s) by the gods, imagined or otherwise, are legion. And UFOs fall into that category by the sheer aspect of their evanescence and ongoing enigma.

We are being fooled, not by that hokum concoction, The Trickster, but by God, Himself, or the Supreme Intelligence, if there is one, that created the Universe.

But why?



  • It gets far more complex when you add religion into the equation, especially with UFOs which are definitely filtered through a particular worldview.

    Based on your comments I suspect you're an atheist. No worries, most UFO skeptic's are. But not all.

    Your questions about God are good. They are common to anyone who cannot make sense out of religion or faith. It's inherently natural.

    The questions you pose actually have answers even if Aquinas and other church fathers couldn't answer them at the time.

    I certainly understand your doubts. You may do well to read the following two books which tackle most of the objections one has when dealing with Biblical faith.

    First: Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (a former staunch and rather harsh critic of Christianity).

    For a more contemporary look: The Reason for God: Belief in the Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller.

    Both may surprise you.

    Regarding ET, I will submit that many who claim his existence are also atheists and anti-religious. In that regard you might have something in common.

    I do agree that blind faith in ET is nothing but a surrogate for an alien messiah from the stars who seems more plausible and easier to understand to most people.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Tuesday, September 29, 2015  

  • Brian:

    I'm agnostic.

    I studied, out of high school, in seminary, under Jesuits, to be a priest.

    I think there was a God.....now dead (not metaphorically), which I've posted much about here and elsewhere.

    Richard Friedman's The Hidden Face of God is a good start for those who believe that God is good.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 29, 2015  

  • A few years ago, I proposed to you that God was/is merely a bystander perhaps due to the "New Covenant" supposedly established by the coming of Christ. This leaves us at the whims of our own divine spark or our own self induced repression of that spark. Regardless, God is on the side lines sipping a beer and eating honey coated cashews as we play the "cosmic" version of Monopoly hoping to pass GO or land on Park Place.

    Rich, I believe that God may be alive and well, he/she/it is just not playing the game nor refereeing said game. It's left to us.

    UFOs? I see no impact concerning humanity's constant march towards insanity and/or enlightenment with the possibility that both destinations may well be the same.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, September 29, 2015  

  • Yes, Tim...

    God may be a bystander, but sins of omission are as bad as sins of commission sometimes.

    God beneath god -- the demi-urge -- is surely dead and Christ with him

    As for the God above god, his indifference is the same as being dead. (Get the Friedman book for more.)

    The so-called intelligence behind the UFO (and other paranormal events) is the Evil side of God, in play, as Jung (and others) intuit.

    It's always been the Game of God that we humans have been forced to play, and UFOs are only one aspect of that Game.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, September 29, 2015  

  • RR

    Deism and Irreligion seem to be a more casual way handling being a Recovering Catholic without being a staunch atheist, I believe. I've wrestled with it since the Philosophy of Knowledge I took in freshman year.

    Oh, and Jesuits? -No wonder you're screwed up! -A little Catholic/Post Catholic humor.


    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • Bryan:

    Those Jebbies were enlightening and contradictory, all at once.

    But they created me, pretty much, and I am screwed up, but you know this, as you note.

    (I had a small laugh.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • Rich, some thoughts that I had conjured up late last night: suppose that the essence of God is based on a form of schizophrenia or even bi-polar. I'm more so leaning to the thought that Bi-polar is the true default for the normal human psyche within the context of a continuum which there is a centric position for "normal." Either movement away from the center represents maladaptive behaviors. BTW, one of our psychiatrist endorses the possibility of this default position.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • But Psychiatry and psychiatrists are under general attack by everyone, Tim, and rightfully so (but that for another time).

    The Thomistic reply to The Philosopher covers the all the possibilities for God's apparent misbehavior, schizophrenia or bi-polar not among them, of course.

    But we can ascribe psychiatric attributes I think.

    (What sci-fi writers have done so I wonder.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, September 30, 2015  

  • Doesn't seem like a god worthy of the moniker if he can't come up with a ploy that RR can't see through... And not even mention of so-called 'free will' and the problems inherent in creating mankind minus that free will? Whether you agree with it or not, that is certainly the excuse typically proffered by theologians on why this god made us capable of evil.

    I can't begin to describe the hubris/chutzpah that I detect in someone who claims to have seen through GOD's attempt to trick them. It is quite literally off the charts! Not so omniscient as to fool ole RR, eh?

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • ``The Universe itself was regarded as a supremely intelligent being. Such was the doctrine of Timæus of Locria. The soul of man was part of the intelligent soul of the Universe, and therefore itself intelligent. His opinion was that of many other philosophers. Cleanthes, a disciple of ZENO, regarded the Universe as God, Or as the unproduced and universal cause of all effects produced. He ascribed a soul and intelligence to universal nature, and to this intelligent soul, in his view, divinity belonged. From it the intelligence of man was an emanation, and shared its divinity. Chrysippus, the most subtle of the Stoics, placed in the universal reason that forms the soul and intelligence of nature, that divine force or essence of the Divinity which he assigned to the world moved by the universal soul that pervades its every part.

    An interlocutor in Cicero’s work, De Natura Deorum, formally argues that the Universe is necessarily intelligent and wise, because man, an infinitely small portion of it, is so. Cicero makes the same argument in his oration for Milo. The physicists came to the same conclusion as the philosophers. They supposed that movement essentially belonged to the soul, and the direction of regular and ordered movements to the intelligence. And, as both movement and order exist in the Universe, therefore, they held, there must be in it a soul and an intelligence that role it, and are not to be distinguished from itself; because the idea of the Universe is but the aggregate of all the particular ideas of all things that exist (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, 1871, p. 670).``

    And Christianity grew from the Gnostics who believed similarly. There have not been any evidence-based studies that justify the evangelical perversion of this idea in the modern-day. The position of those early thinkers is still valid, and is typically called 'The God of the Philosophers' in contradistinction to what we have today -- namely, a FAR more anthropomorphic version. But if you get into the original Greek of the New Testament, you can see how they still, at least at that time, meshed with Zeno's 'vision' -- and that of the Pythagoreans and Atomists.

    It's FAR more mysterious in Christianity, but it's there. Sadly, the evangelicals can't see it because they insist on reading it as a history book. They act as though Matthew wrote the book of Matthew, Luke wrote Luke, etc., etc. And we KNOW that is simply not likely. They were simply titles added later, to differentiate them from one another. They are four accounts of the SAME gospel -- the same general story about Jesus. They are NOT eye-witness accounts. Nor would the disciples count as eye-witness accounts from inside the story itself -- no more than the 7 dwarves would be for Snow White!

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • And you've read Teilhard's view on Christ and the Universe. He and Zeno share an idea.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • b”h

    Rich, I sympathize with you in your unhappy association with Catholicism. There is a different angle. I grew up with a love of nature and science and I completely absorbed the naturalistic, materialist scientism that pervades the west. As a youth I understood implicitly the undeclared message of nihilism, to wit, that when you are dead, you are forevermore extinguished from sentient existence. If that is really the case, then the self-starting, random operating, materialistic universe is itself horrifically capricious. The calculus I studied at university depends on the concept of infinite and infinitesimal. Even at best, a pleasurable life of 70 years is virtually “zero” in length compared to an infinity that precedes and follows. And that assumes you actually have a pleasant 70 years. What about the millions upon millions of unjustly tortured and murdered through the centuries? At least in a theistic universe there is a slim hope that the Deity will make some sort of just restitution for the innocent and fitting punishment for die-hard criminals. But in a materialistic universe everyone just stops existing, good, bad, wicked, innocent, long-lived, aborted. What is the freaking point? I reached the depth of depression at age twenty, some forty years ago, because of that materialistic worldview. So I do sympathize with youth who are sold a bill of philosophical goods that do not stand up to fair scrutiny.

    In my case, I ventured to consider the possibility of a Creator Deity who actually does bring a fair resolution to the universe. Isn’t that really the crux of your argument – a fair resolution? As an innocent, solo seeker of an answer, I humbly asked the Deity I suspected to exist to interact with me in a way that I could actually understand as a direct answer. That was at age 22. I got my answer, and much more. As I see things, the price for the universe’s ultimate righteous resolution has to take into consideration all the injustice in the creation, together with the Creator’s free-will responsibility for making a world that permits it. For me, only the free-will incarnation and unjust crucifixion – that atones for all the universe’s injustice – makes theological sense. In my view the greatest sin of the religious establishment is in its hindrance to actual interaction with God. I say that as one who affirms the integrity of the Hebrew and Greek writings of the Bible.

    Best wishes.

    By Blogger William Strathman, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • Thank you William...

    My "problem" with The Church derives from an historical overlay of the corruption and evil that has permeated the institution from the outset.

    And where is the so-called Holy Spirit in all this?

    The crucifixion of God didn't and doesn't atone for the evil before and after the event, as I see it.

    God died, not on the cross, but shortly thereafter, by an act of deicide?

    I'm happy you have found a way to cope with the mystery of life.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • ``And where is the so-called Holy Spirit in all this?``

    Busy making you? ;)

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • This one is a conundrum that I don't believe any theologian will EVER have the ability to settle one way or another until the end of time: Where was God at when He created the Universe (ex nihilo)? And was anyone there with Him?

    The ex nihilo creation of the universe requires some extra dimension for this God to operate within. But was Sophia and the Logos there with God? If you look closely at the Gnostic writings, they're not quite so sure either -- as it is difficult to see how Personified Wisdom and the Logos could exist without physical matter ('materia prima').

    The Gnostics didn't know for certain. It seems to me that they considered and separately believed all the logical combinations in lesser or greater measure. Some held that it is only Sophia and The Father that can exist without 'materia prima', and that the Logos CANNOT function AT ALL without 'materia prima'. While others believed that only The Father could exist prior to 'materia prima' -- which is why 'He' is singled out in the texts as being able to create ex nihilo. Did 'Jesus'/Logos exist before the Universe? Or is 'Jesus'/Logos the Universe? ;)

    ``For Teilhard, Christ today is not just Jesus of Nazareth risen from the dead, but rather a huge, continually evolving Being as big as the universe. In this colossal, almost unimaginable Being each of us lives and develops in consciousness, like living cells in a huge organism. At various times, theologians have described this great Being as the Total Christ, the Cosmic Christ, the Whole Christ, the Universal Christ or the Mystical Body of Christ. `` -- http://www.teilhardforbeginners.com/divinemilieau.html

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

  • For me, Parakletos, the ex nihilo, argument (The Big Bang) makes no sense.

    I've always been a fan of Hoyle's eternal Universe and thus eternal God.

    But that presents problems also, just not as difficult to imagine as something from nothing.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, October 01, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home