PDA

View Full Version : Is the Bible alien friendly?


alterego
01-04-2004, 04:46 PM
Suppose we find life elsewhere, does this contradict popular Biblically based beliefs?

Suppose we find intelligent life elsewherer, does this debunk Creationism?

MEBuckner
01-04-2004, 05:27 PM
The discovery of extraterrestrial life, or at any rate of extraterrestrial intelligent life, would certainly contradict some people's Biblically-based popular beliefs. A Google search on "Bible" and "extraterrestrial life" turns up a number of creationist pages confidently asserting that E.T.'s are incompatible with the Bible. This is not the same as saying that the Bible itself clearly has anything to say about extraterrestrial life one way or the other, and you can find plenty of people claiming that this or that Bible passage is in fact clear proof of E.T.'s. Some of these people are non-Christians who assert that various things in "ancient mythologies", including the Bible, are records of past visitations to Earth by space aliens; others are Christians who accept the Bible as a true account (however interpreted). Among Christians, there is also the variant claim that E.T.'s are really angels and/or demons, not mortal non-human intelligent life-forms.

Of course, extraterrestrial intelligence, if it were ever discovered, would pose some interesting questions for classical Christian theology. Did other forms of intelligent life require a savior or not? If so, how was that handled, and what would that imply for the whole Trinity thing?

netscape 6
01-04-2004, 06:02 PM
7th day advantist believe (I think) there is life on other worlds, but we were the only planet that failed the temptation test. The other worlds don't need a savior in other words.

SnoopyFan
01-04-2004, 09:08 PM
Suppose we find life elsewhere, does this contradict popular Biblically based beliefs?

Nope. There's nothing in the Bible that says that we're the only life in the universe. If God is an artist and a creator, why would He stop with just one little planet of humans? Why not make lots of them?

Suppose we find intelligent life elsewherer, does this debunk Creationism?

No, why would it? Creationism says that God made everything in 6 days, but it certainly doesn't tell us *everything* He made. The creation story would never end if it went into tiny details (He made chickens, then the turkey, and then the otter, etc). It says He made the heavens and the earth: doesn't say anything about whether or not He put people elsewhere in the heavens, I imagine because the only people we needed to know about were the people here on our planet.

If there is other life out there (I think there certainly could be), does it really matter whether we know or not? I mean, let's say we find out somehow that yes, there are other humans out there in other galaxies. What are we gonna do about it? Nothing we CAN do!

Urban Ranger
01-04-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by SnoopyFan
No, why would it? Creationism says that God made everything in 6 days, but it certainly doesn't tell us *everything* He made.

Surely the biblical genesis accounts specified everything YHWH made in these 6 days? Certainly planetary systems outside Sol are not mentioned.

SnoopyFan
01-05-2004, 12:40 AM
Surely the biblical genesis accounts specified everything YHWH made in these 6 days? Certainly planetary systems outside Sol are not mentioned.

I wasn't aware that "planetary systems outside Sol" didn't meet the criteria for being part of the heavens.

alterego
01-05-2004, 12:49 AM
Is the Bible that ambiguous?

This likens it to the Oracle in the Matrix, not telling you anything specifically true or false, but simply what you need to hear.

It would be quite centered of whomever wrote Genesis to think that God created him, but that aliens magically appeared on Mars without God knowing about it.

netscape 6
01-05-2004, 02:32 AM
centered?

alterego
01-05-2004, 02:53 AM
yes, an inflection of self-centered, selfish, and egoistic.

UDS
01-05-2004, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by alterego
. . . It would be quite centered of whomever wrote Genesis to think that God created him, but that aliens magically appeared on Mars without God knowing about it.
Well, "whoever wrote Genesis" clearly did think that God had created him, but there's no reason to suppose that he was aware that Mars was a planet, or that he contemplated the existence of intellligent life on it. It seems unwarranted to assume that he might have believed "aliens magically appeared on Mars without God knowing anything about it".

He clearly beleived that God created the heavens and if the thought of Mars at all, he would have thought of it as part of the heavens. So, if the possibility (or actuality) of life on Mars (or on any other heavenly body) had been presented to him, it seems reasonable to suppose that he would have believed it to be the creation of God.

The bible is not ambiguous here. Sketchy, possibly, but not really ambiguous. Jews, as well as Christians of all denominations, have no difficulty in understanding it to mean that God created everything, and that most of what is created is not explicitly mentioned. Why should it be?

Mangetout
01-05-2004, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by alterego
Suppose we find intelligent life elsewherer, does this debunk Creationism? Creationism doesn't make any falsifiable predictions, but it would probably find a way to assert that the existence of aliens is what the Bible said all along.

alterego
01-05-2004, 03:11 AM
UBS what I was getting at is the point that the Bible is believed to be inspired writing. Inspired by God.

In a sense, you could say that those who believe in the Bible believe that God wrote it himself, in the sense that he inspired those who wrote it to write what he had to say.

From this point of view, the Bible is indeed ambiguous, only meant to tell us what we need to hear, and not an actual account of what happened.

UDS
01-05-2004, 03:28 AM
Well, yes, but you can beleive the Bible to be the inspired word of God without believing it to be a complete statement of every possible true fact, or even of every important fact.

The extent to which the bible offers us "an actual account of what happened" is, of course, a matter of debate among Christians. But nobody believes that it is an actual account of everything that happened. Some editorial selection has been made of what to include in the text, whether divinely or otherwise. And, if particular facts are included, it is not simply because they are true but because they have some importance to the message which the Bible is trying to convey.

So, yes, the Bible is meant to tell us only what we need to hear, not everything that is factually true. But exactly the same could be said of any other text.

That does not mean that the bible is "ambiguous" (except perhaps in the sense that acceptance of the bible is consistent with more than one view on a variety of factual matters - e.g. it is possible to accept the bible and believe that no extraterrestrial life exists, and it is also possible to accept the bible and believe that extraterrestrial life may or does exist. To say tha the Bible is ambiguous on the question of extraterrestrial life is a bit like saying that a textbook on Darwinian evolution is ambiguous on the question; neither really addresses the question at all. It's not the usual (or, I think, a useful) sense of the word "ambiguous".

Mangetout
01-05-2004, 04:29 AM
I've always found John 10:14-16 quite tantalising:
[Jesus said] "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me-- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father--and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
(Emphasis mine)Probably just talking about the Gentiles though.

grimpixie
01-05-2004, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by netscape 6
7th day advantist believe (I think) there is life on other worlds, but we were the only planet that failed the temptation test. The other worlds don't need a savior in other words. C.S. Lewis' "Planets" trilogy explores this idea, the three novels are set on Mars, Venus and Earth respectively, but Mars and Venus are planets unsullied by sin (until the arrival of the protagonist). It is an interesting idea...

Personally, I used to wonder about this - if there was sin on other planets, would Jesus need to do a "cosmic roadshow", being incarnated in each solar system, or would the earthly crucifixion suffice?

Grim

Mangetout
01-05-2004, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by grimpixie
Personally, I used to wonder about this - if there was sin on other planets, would Jesus need to do a "cosmic roadshow", being incarnated in each solar system, or would the earthly crucifixion suffice?I'm sure that God, being omnipotent, could engineer things in such a way that the events of the incarnation, crucifixion, atonement, resurrection, ascension etc happened only once, universally and for all, but that all of his sentient lifeforms experienced them locally at different times and saw the events as being exclusively for their planet.

kflanaga
01-05-2004, 06:08 AM
From alterego:

"UBS what I was getting at is the point that the Bible is believed to be inspired writing. Inspired by God.

In a sense, you could say that those who believe in the Bible believe that God wrote it himself, in the sense that he inspired those who wrote it to write what he had to say.

From this point of view, the Bible is indeed ambiguous, only meant to tell us what we need to hear, and not an actual account of what happened."

I LOVE this familiar copout every time the Bible is wrong. Can you picture Dr. Watson on the day that the DNA molecule is shown to actually be a cube saying, "Well, we didn't mean that DNA was LITERALLY a double helix!"

alterego
01-05-2004, 06:41 AM
I don't see the correlation kflanaga.

alterego
01-05-2004, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by Mangetout
Creationism doesn't make any falsifiable predictions, but it would probably find a way to assert that the existence of aliens is what the Bible said all along.

I belive it would also. That's why I'm asking before it happens =) Tryin' to catch them off guard.

I am a Creationist myself, i just ascribe to my own POV (i'm not sure what it is, either)

raizok
01-05-2004, 07:40 AM
Well if you read the bible with the conviction that aliens influenced everything thats happenned, you'd see a lot of potential.

Star of Bethlehem? UFO.

Virgin birth? Artificial insemination (after abduction where Mary passes out prior to being told she's pregnant)

Ark of Covenant? Radio transmitter.

Or read Ezekiel's chapter and notice how he seems to describe a UFO coming from the sky.

On a similar note, the "pillar of fire by night, cloud by day" which followed Moses as he lead the people from Egypt also could have been a UFO.

I dont know, it seems to me that alien intervention (if believed aliens exist) do certainly have some validity when applied to events in the bible. And not just the bible either, some early cultures have made crude drawings/references to lifeforms that have not existed on Earth. A good reference is Erich Von Daniken's "Chariot of the Gods" for those that are curious about so-called alien influence in early history.

Mangetout
01-05-2004, 07:54 AM
I can't see those sorts of interpretations sitting well with very many Biblical literalists/creationists though, raizok.

Also I can't think of any way in which Von Daniken's publications merit use of the word 'good'.

Brandus
01-05-2004, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by raizok
On a similar note, the "pillar of fire by night, cloud by day" which followed Moses as he lead the people from Egypt also could have been a UFO.

Or a volcano.

People who try to alter the bible to fit the theory of alien visitors lead themselves down a dead end. If humanity is a product of alien visitors, where did those aliens come from? Did another group of aliens visit their planet millenia ago? If so, where did those aliens come from? If you bring this to its logical conclusion, it is about as silly as believing that the world sits on the top of an infinite stack of tortoises.

Polycarp
01-05-2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by grimpixie
C.S. Lewis' "Planets" trilogy explores this idea, the three novels are set on Mars, Venus and Earth respectively, but Mars and Venus are planets unsullied by sin (until the arrival of the protagonist). It is an interesting idea...

Personally, I used to wonder about this - if there was sin on other planets, would Jesus need to do a "cosmic roadshow", being incarnated in each solar system, or would the earthly crucifixion suffice?

Grim

I am surprised that Malacandra, who is a member here, hasn't found this thread and posted to it already! :D

Grim, you are truly a learned hnau of Thulcandra! :)

cmkeller
01-05-2004, 11:29 AM
The general consensus amongst Orthodox Jewish scholars is that there is nothing in the Tanakh (Old Testament) that indicates a lack of extraterrestrial life, intelligent or otehrwise.

sqweels
01-05-2004, 11:34 AM
MEBuckner:
Did other forms of intelligent life require a savior or not? If so, how was that handled, and what would that imply for the whole Trinity thing?

Maybe there's a planet out there where Jesus' sister is worshipped as the "Daughter of God". Make that half-sister.

raizok:
Star of Bethlehem? UFO.

Virgin birth? Artificial insemination (after abduction where Mary passes out prior to being told she's pregnant)

Hey, that's my (other) crackpot theory! The UFO was in geo-synchronious orbit over Bethlehem so the Magi were able to triangulate its position. Mary was inseminated with sperm genetically engineered to create a superior being. Meanwhile, some shepherds had a close encounter.

SnoopyFan
01-05-2004, 11:50 AM
Did other forms of intelligent life require a savior or not?

I would say no, but that is just my opinion.

If the devil is banished to the earth until the judgment, he and his little cronies can only cause trouble here. If there are other people on other planets, they are probably not fallen to begin with and are living in the Edenlike conditions we were meant to live in before Adam and Eve went and screwed things up for all of us. If there's no need for redemption, there's no need for a savior.

sqweels
01-05-2004, 12:06 PM
Brandus:
People who try to alter the bible to fit the theory of alien visitors lead themselves down a dead end. If humanity is a product of alien visitors, where did those aliens come from? Did another group of aliens visit their planet millenia ago? If so, where did those aliens come from? If you bring this to its logical conclusion, it is about as silly as believing that the world sits on the top of an infinite stack of tortoises.

First of all, no one is "believing" anything here, we're just engaging in casual speculation. And no one is insisting that humans are the product of alien visitors. But just because such speculation would lead to a lot of unanswered questions doesn't mean it's silly nonsense. Far fetched, sure, but the logical conclusion is simply that we don't have all the answers.

netscape 6
01-05-2004, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by raizok

Ark of Covenant? Radio transmitter.



I remember watching a tv on the search for it. Appearently if you follow the plans in the Bible you get a dynomo of some kind.


So I'd say alien power generator.

ataraxy22
01-05-2004, 12:37 PM
From a semantics point of view I have always considered the Christian god to be some superpowerful alien himself. If he created earth, he is by definition not of this earth, hence extraterrestrial (alien).

alterego
01-05-2004, 12:52 PM
You capitalized Christian but not God?

=)

Flash-57
01-05-2004, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by SnoopyFan
[b]If there are other people on other planets, they are probably not fallen to begin with and are living in the Edenlike conditions we were meant to live in before Adam and Eve went and screwed things up for all of us. If there's no need for redemption, there's no need for a savior.

And, as I understand it, Adam and Eve were Iraqis. That explains a lot.

As for other planets, they may have been free of original sin, just like we were at one time. But, it's fairly likely that at least one of their number committed a sin or two in the last couple of hundred thousand years, just like we did.

So, it's very likely that Jesus' HazMat crew had to travel to every inhabited planet and die for their sins too.

Or, I suppose, He could have Simulcast the events to all planets at the same time.

Cervaise
01-05-2004, 04:56 PM
Seems to me one of the most significant questions in this debate, and certain the biggest one I never see discussed in any depth or detail (which just goes to show how self-absorbed we are: it's all about us! us! us!), the actual real-world effect of coming into contact with intelligent extraterrestrials will depend largely on what religion or religions, if any, the ETs follow. There's some passing mention of it above (Jesus's sister?), but don't you think it's far more likely that either (A) the hypothetical aliens will have some completely unprecedented religious cosmology or (B) they will have abandoned religion entirely?

If it's (A) say, we were all sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure and it's clear that religion is an emotional and intellectual construct that depends just as much on its environment as does biological evolution (read Sawyer's Ascension trilogy), then human religion will take a body blow. If it's (B), we'll be divided between the missionaries who follow the "didn't need a Savior" position and those who succumb to the aliens' patronizing "you still believe that?" posturing.

On the off chance the aliens follow a superficially similar monotheistically structured code of morals, naturally the overarching effort will be for reconciliation between "incomplete" revelations (with, of course, holdouts for doctrinal "purity," on both sides) rather than direct competition between Jesus and the Arkleseizure.

Malthus
01-05-2004, 05:04 PM
Who was it who said that if horses and dogs had gods, they would have the form of horses and dogs?

Anyway, while the Bible may or may not be alien-friendly, the province of Ontario is most definitely not. To my knowledge, we are the *only* jurisdiction in which a common law precident has been set that Marsians do not have standing to sue. I presume no non-human aliens from other places would, either!

[I am not joking. This actually came up in a case litigated by my firm.]

Polycarp
01-06-2004, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by Malthus
Who was it who said that if horses and dogs had gods, they would have the form of horses and dogs?

Anyway, while the Bible may or may not be alien-friendly, the province of Ontario is most definitely not. To my knowledge, we are the *only* jurisdiction in which a common law precident has been set that Marsians do not have standing to sue. I presume no non-human aliens from other places would, either!

[I am not joking. This actually came up in a case litigated by my firm.]

I have got to know the story behind this! (BTW, does anyone have the cite to the judge's ruling where someone attempted to sue God? That too is a masterpiece of legal reasoning.)

Flash-57
01-06-2004, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Cervaise
Seems to me one of the most significant questions in this debate ...will depend largely on what religion or religions, if any, the ETs follow.

On the off chance the aliens follow a superficially similar monotheistically structured code of morals, naturally the overarching effort will be for reconciliation between "incomplete" revelations

Well, it's mostly a moot point to discuss the differences between what beliefs we have and what specific beliefs the theoretical aliens might have.

If they are simple beliefs, then it's most likely that the two belief systems will simply exist side-by-side, as our major religions do today.

The problem could come if they actually introduce their god to us.

Alien: This is Mokalafw. He is our god.
Mokalafw: Greetings earthlings! Would you like to see a miracle or two? Watch me create a rock so large that even I can't lift it. Where would you like it created?

The Great Unwashed
01-06-2004, 11:33 AM
To my mind the bible's failure to include anything like an accurate cosmology is proof that it was not divinely inspired.

Consider:
Guru: I have divinely inspired insights
Me: Tell me one
Guru: You are about five foot eight, and strikingly good looking
Me: Right, tell me something I didn't know.
Guru: No, it's only inspired -- I didn't say complete


[meanwhile elsewhere on the miserable boil of a planet you beings call Earth...]


Originally posted by alterego
You capitalized Christian but not God?

=)

And your point is?

* Christian, adjectival form of proper noun Christ
* god, noun

Seems perfectly fine to me. God with a capital G is just what the Christian's call their god, right?

What does "=)" mean?

grimpixie
01-06-2004, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Polycarp
Grim, you are truly a learned hnau of Thulcandra! :) Would that make you an eldil? :) It has been long enough since I last read the trilogy that I had to go and consult Google to find out whether to be honoured or insulted!!
Originally posted by The Great Unwashed
To my mind the bible's failure to include anything like an accurate cosmology is proof that it was not divinely inspired.Do you really think that this (http://superstringtheory.com/equations/BStringModeSum.gif) would have been a better way to start the Bible than "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

Grim

alterego
01-06-2004, 12:12 PM
The Great Unwashed, according the AP style guide sitting here on my desk, we leave the Roman gods lower cased, however when referring to a proper noun (person, place or thing) we capitalize.

After some online research however, I am unable to discern if it would be Christian god, as you put it, or Christian God.

You may be right, because I believe you would write United States president, and not United States President, but I'm not sure.

Here is a reference explaining: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CapitalizingGod

=) is a smiley face. If you haven't seen one before here is a good link for you.

http://www.smileydictionary.com/

If you have, and are being cynical, then lighten the hell up, man. I don't come 'round these parts to chop gizzards and saw off noggin's if'n ya' reckon ya' know what I mean.

:)

Malthus
01-06-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Polycarp
I have got to know the story behind this! (BTW, does anyone have the cite to the judge's ruling where someone attempted to sue God? That too is a masterpiece of legal reasoning.)

Your wish is my command. :D

Here is the Martian Motion (note that court documents are not copyright). Note the highlighted section, which clearly establishes the precident that Martians have no standing to sue in Ontario.

"Joly v. Pelletier

Between
Rene Joly, and
R. Pelletier, Clive Livingstone Clarke, Henry Cussy et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
Roland Pelletier, et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
Shoppers Drugmart et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
MDS Laboratories et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
Wainbee Limited et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario et al.
And between
Rene Joly, and
Pharma Plus Drugmarts et al.

[1999] O.J. No. 1728
Court File Nos. 99-CV-166273 and 99-CV-167339

Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Epstein J.

May 16, 1999.
(4 pp.)


Counsel:

No counsel mentioned.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 EPSTEIN J. (endorsement): This endorsement relates to a series of motions brought on behalf of a number of the defendants in two related actions commenced in this Court by the plaintiff, Rene Joly. The moving parties seek orders striking out the Statements of Claim and thereby dismissing the actions on the grounds that the pleadings disclose no cause of action (rule 21.01(3)() or are frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court (rule 25.11).

2 Mr. Joly's claims in these two actions, and in several others not currently before me, all centre on his firm assertion that he is not a human being; rather a martian. As I understand them, the nature of his complaints against the numerous defendants who include a number of doctors, medical facilities and government agencies is that they have conspired with the American government in its attempts to eliminate him and have otherwise taken various steps to interfere with his ability to establish himself and live freely as a martian.

3 As indicated, there are two actions before me. At the beginning of the hearing Mr. Joly advised me that he has recently commenced a third action against, among others, the Central Intelligence Agency, President Clinton and the Honourable Anne McClellan for interfering with his D.N.A. test results that prove that he is, in fact, not human.

4 Given the related issues in the three actions brought in this Court, I ordered that the three proceedings be consolidated. All parties consented to this order. An order will issue to this effect. Unfortunately, I failed to note the action number of the third action affected by this order.

5 As another preliminary matter, I should indicate that given the unusual nature of the plaintiff's claims, a discussion took place at the beginning of argument as to whether I should order that a hearing be conducted pursuant to the provisions of rule 7 of the Rules of Civil procedure for a determination as to whether the plaintiff was in a position properly to represent his interests on the motions or whether a litigation guardian should be appointed. As a result of this issue having been raised, I arranged for a reporter to record the proceedings and the plaintiff agreed to testify under oath and answer certain questions posed by Mr. Novak, counsel who appeared on behalf of a number of the defendants. At the conclusion of this form of hearing and having considered the submissions made, I determined that there was no reason to delay the argument of the motions. I made the observation that in every respect Mr. Joly properly conducted himself before the Court. He presented himself as polite, articulate, intelligent and appeared to understand completely the issues before the Court and the consequences should I grant the relief sought. There was nothing before me, other than the uniqueness of the pleadings in question, for me, on my own volition, to adjourn, pending a hearing to determine if Mr. Joly is under some form of disability. This observation, the fact that no one was really urging me to adjourn and the costs to all concerned of having these proceedings protracted, factored into my decision to proceed.

6 Finally, I add that at the request of the parties, leave was granted to adduce evidence at the hearing. Both Mr. Novak and Mr. Joly presented evidence to the Court in support of their submissions.

7 The crux of the various arguments advanced orally and in the written material is that Mr. Joly's claims disclose no cause of action and are otherwise frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. It was also argued that the tort of conspiracy was not properly pleaded and that no damages have been identified or claimed. It was further pointed out that several of the defendants are not legal entities and are not capable of being sued.

8 Mr. Joly, in a well prepared, thoughtful argument submitted that he had evidence of falsification of records and related wrongdoing. On the pivotal point of Mr. Joly's being in fact a martian Mr. Joly advised me that the only reason he was not now able to satisfy the Court that he is a martian, not a human, is due to the falsification of his D.N.A. test results by the Americans.

9 The authorities relied upon by the moving parties are well known. On a motion to strike out a pleading, the Court must accept the facts as alleged in the Statement of Claim as proven unless they are patently ridiculous and incapable of proof and must read the Statement of Claim generously with allowance for inadequacies due to drafting deficiencies. See Nash v. The Queen in Right of Ontario (1995), 27 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.). Perhaps the leading case is that of Carey Canada Inc. v. Hunt et al. (1990) 74 D.L.R. (4th) 321 (S.C.C) in which the test in Canada is described as assuming that the facts as stated in the Statement of Claim can be proved, the Court must be satisfied that it is "plain and obvious" that the plaintiff's statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action.

10 Concerning rule 25.11, the Court will dismiss or stay an action as being frivolous, vexatious or abusive only in the clearest cases where it is plain and obvious the case cannot succeed. The decision in Steiner v. Canada [1996] F.C.J. No. 1356 (Fed. T.D.) makes it clear that if a pleading does not present a rational argument, either on the evidence or in law, in support of the claim, and casts unreasonable aspersions is frivolous.

11 In my opinion there are at lease two reasons why the two Statements of Claim in question ought to be struck and the actions dismissed.

1. Neither pleading discloses a cause of action. While conspiracy to do harm to someone is the basis of many actions in this Court there is a fundamental flaw in the position of Mr. Joly. Rule 1.03 defines plaintiff as "a person who commences an action". The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines person as "an individual human being". Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides that a person includes a corporation. It follows that if the plaintiff is not a person in that he is neither a human being nor a corporation, he cannot be a plaintiff as contemplated by the Rules of Civil Procedure. The entire basis of Mr. Joly's actions is that he is a martian, not a human being. There is certainly no suggestion that he is a corporation. I conclude therefore, that Mr. Joly, on his pleading as drafted, has no status before the Court.

2. In respect to the motions brought under rule 25.11 I am of the view that the test has been passed in the circumstances of this case. In other words, I am satisfied that the claims are frivolous and vexatious and constitute an abuse of the process of this Court. In addition to the fact that the tort of conspiracy has not been remotely properly pleaded, no damages have been claimed and many of the defendants are not even legal entities capable of being sued. More importantly, with all respect to Mr. Joly and his perception of reality, these actions are patently ridiculous and should not be allowed to continue as they utilize scarce public resources not to mention the time and money of the numerous defendants who have been forced to defend these actions.


12 In the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the moving parties are entitled to the relief requested. The Statements of Claim in both actions are struck and the actions are dismissed.

13 The defendants are entitled to their costs of the actions but it would seem to be that the defence has likely incurred little if any costs in defending the actions. The moving parties are certainly entitled to their costs of the motions, if demanded. If the parties require any assistance with respect to the resolution of costs, they may arrange a conference call through the assistance of my secretary.

EPSTEIN J.

Polycarp
01-06-2004, 07:39 PM
[Spock voice]
Fascinating!
[/spock voice]

Tars Tarkas, take note not to travel to Ontario! John Carter of Mars would seem to be covered, due to his dual citizenship (U.S.A. and Helium).

The Great Unwashed
01-07-2004, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by alterego
The Great Unwashed, according the AP style guide sitting here on my desk, we leave the Roman gods lower cased, however when referring to a proper noun (person, place or thing) we capitalize.

After some online research however, I am unable to discern if it would be Christian god, as you put it, or Christian God.

You may be right, because I believe you would write United States president, and not United States President, but I'm not sure.

Here is a reference explaining: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CapitalizingGod

=) is a smiley face. If you haven't seen one before here is a good link for you.

http://www.smileydictionary.com/

If you have, and are being cynical, then lighten the hell up, man. I don't come 'round these parts to chop gizzards and saw off noggin's if'n ya' reckon ya' know what I mean.

:)

So in summary, ataraxy22 was right -- "god" takes no capital in the phrase "the Christian god". Good.

And, "=)" is an emoticon, lucidly explained by the site you recommended, thus:Category: Moods
Description: surprised!

Somehow I'm expected to know that? Silly me.