This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


space

Communion on the Moon: Religion in Space

Before the launch this weekend of three human beings into the ether of space around the Earth, before they boarded their Soyuz spacecraft, and before the rockets were fired, precautions were taken. Not the humdrum checklists and redundancies of space exploration — assessing the weather, the equipment, the math — but a preparation with a more mystical dimension: the blessing, by a Russian Orthodox priest, of the spacecraft, as it sat on the launchpad on the Kazakh steppe.

The scene, as shown in NASA photographs, presents a tableau that seems incongruent, but may just be fitting.

The discordance is obvious: Here we are, on the brink of a new expedition to space, a frontier of human exploration and research that is the capstone of our scientific achievement. "The idea of traveling to other celestial bodies reflects to the highest degree the independence and agility of the human mind. It lends ultimate dignity to man's technical and scientific endeavors," the rocket scientist Krafft Arnold Ehricke once said. "Above all, it touches on the philosophy of his very existence." His secular existence.

And yet here is a priest, outfitted in the finery of a centuries-old church, shaking holy water over the engines, invoking God's protection for a journey to near-earth orbit. That these two spheres of human creation co-exist is remarkable. That they interact, space agencies courting the sanction of Russian Orthodox Christianity, is strange.

Continue reading at www.theatlantic.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Paul F

    Sadly, the Russian Orthodox church knows nothing of the true Christ. Therefore, this "blessing" is nothing more than a bit of splashing water around. However, true Christians know that without Christ we can do nothing. We must depend upon Him for EVERYTHING.

    • Steve03

      And you know nothing of the Russian Orthodox Church.

      • Paul F

        If you think that Russian Orthodoxy is true Christianity, then you know nothing of true Christianity.

        • guest

          Anyone believing that spirituality can be found ONLY without religion (dogma and rules) is also wrong. They are NOT exclusive of each other.

          • Paul F

            I believe that those who are truly saved (Christian) will find themselves a church. True Christians will not desire to "go it alone".

          • wesley

            not every "church" believes the essentials of the faith. from what i have found from many protestants who comment here they have no clue what the essentials of the faith are to begin with.

          • Evermyrtle

            You are right! So many of the mainline churches is mostly a power struggle, about who will get the job and who will run the entire thing. . I know one elderly gentleman who went to the same church for many years. When he fell ill and did not go at all,for several weeks,nobody called to see why or went to visit to see if everything was OK of if he needed some help. When he finally recovered, he felt like he was not wanted and was too old to seek out another church, since he lived out in the country with no other church close by.

        • wesley

          the Russian Orthodox church follows in the tradition of the Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox) church. they believe in the in essentials of the Christian Faith found in the creeds except that the Holy Spirit proceeds from only the Father. they just view Christianity another perspective. they are centered around the sacraments of the faith.

          • Paul F

            They are, basically, a regionalized catholicism. Catholicism is NOT true Christianity.

          • wesley

            what is "true Christianity"? Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, People of Yahweh? so called "Bible Believing Christians" which is as definable as your "true Christianity"?

          • Theban

            Nonsense.

          • Paul F

            True Christians are those who believe that salvation is found in Christ – ALONE! The true Christian has trusted Christ, repented and turned from their sin.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          True Christianity is an oxymoron.

          • Paul F

            What do you mean by that?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Christianity, and all other religions, are a sham.

          • Evermyrtle

            You will change your mind, I promise,. Problem: it may be too late.We shall every one meet HIM face to face, by that time it will be too late.

            Mat 25; 32-34
            32. And before HIM shall be gathered all nations: and HE shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats:
            33. And HE shall set the sheep on HIS right hand, but the goats on the left.
            34. Then shall the KING say unto them on HIS right hand, Come, you bless of my FATHER, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

            Read the rest of the chapter, if I copy it it will be deleted,likely.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That is a promise you cannot keep Myrtle.

    • Evermyrtle

      I have not a clue what or how the Russian Orthodox feel about or worship JESUS CHRIST, except t for that what you say is very true.HE is all that we have to depend on. and we best keep HIM in the correct place in our lives.

    • lambsev

      Nothing Paul? Then you must go to Moscow and tell them.

    • Jay

      This is the Gospel as according to Paul F. Your condescension is ugly as it is vile.

      Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12)

      • Paul F

        Where, specifically, do you think I differ from God's Holy Word, the Bible?

  • Paul F
  • wesley

    it is amazing how a belief in the Christian God has advanced science. Isaac Newton studied theology more than he studied science, but he is considered by many scientists the smartest person to ever live. Nickolaus Copernicus made calenders for the church when he discovered that moon phases and eclipses could be predicted by having the earth revolve around the sun which was later proven by Galileo and Johanas Kepler through the study of astronomy. many of the astronauts were also Christians for when you believe in a creator you search to learn all you can about the creator for the heavens declares the majesty of our creator and earth shows his glory in that he made fish with color even though they live so deep that they would not be seen or he puts flower of beautiful colors in the most isolated areas of the earth. all these show how much he loves beauty and his creation.

    • Paul F

      I have read that EVERY major division of science was founded by a Christian.

      • Steve03

        Except for physics, biology, astronomy, mathematics, geology, geography, theology, philosophy, chemistry, anthropology, political science, economics, and the others that were founded by pagans. And let's not for get that Christianity was founded by Jews.
        And since you think that the Orthodox and Roman Communions — and I would guess the Anglicans — "know nothing of Christ," whatever you read is, by your own standards, wrong, as the people you're probably thinking of (Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin) knew nothing of Christ, being communicants of those churches.

        • Paul F

          It seems as though you know nothing of the history of science and those who founded the various disciplines.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The earliest record of man's interest in chemistry was approximately 3,000 B.C, in the fertile crescent. At that time, chemistry was more an art than a science. Tablets record the first known chemists as women who manufactured perfumes from various substances. Ancient Egyptians produced certain compounds such as those used in mummification. By 1000 B.C, chemical arts included the smelting of metals and the making of drugs, dyes, iron, and bronze.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Natural philosophy has its origins in Greece during the Archaic period, (650 BCE – 480 BCE), when Pre-Socratic philosophers like Thales refused supernatural, religious or mythological explanations for natural phenomena and proclaimed that every event had a natural cause.[8] They proposed ideas verified by reason and observation and many of their hypotheses proved successful in experiment,[9] for example atomism.

            Natural science was developed in China, India and in Islamic caliphates, between the 4th and 10th century BCE.[citation needed] Quantitative descriptions became popular among physicists and astronomers, for example Archimedes in the domains of mechanics, statics and hydrostatics. Experimental physics had its debuts with experimentation concerning statics by medieval Muslim physicists like al-Biruni and Alhazen.[10][11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            By the time of Plato, Greek mathematics had undergone a drastic change. The Greeks created a geometric algebra where terms were represented by sides of geometric objects, usually lines, that had letters associated with them.[2] Diophantus (3rd century AD), sometimes called "the father of algebra", was an Alexandrian Greek mathematician and the author of a series of books called Arithmetica. These texts deal with solving algebraic equations.[3]
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebra

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The origins of Western astronomy can be found in Mesopotamia, the "land between the rivers" Tigris and Euphrates, where the ancient kingdoms of Sumer, Assyria, and Babylonia were located. A form of writing known as cuneiform emerged among the Sumerians around 3500–3000 BC.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_astronomy

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The invention of medicines dates back to centuries. It was in around 3000 B. C. that the Egyptians used remedies to fight diseases and they also performed basic surgeries by general examination of the patient and mainly the guess work and magic worked. In Greece Hippocrates was considered as the father of the medicine.
            http://whoinvented.org/who-invented-medicine/

          • Evermyrtle

            It is such a pity, Jeff you have so much knowledge and wisdom of worldly things, and to know nothing about my SAVIOR and your SAVIOR it is so sad. I will pray that you find your way and realize what you have been missing.

          • Theban

            :0 This "wisdom" of his known stuff and perhaps wisdom only to you. How is Christ his "SAVIOR" if he denies Him and mocks Him?

          • Evermyrtle

            There is only one requirement for HIM to be anyone's SAVIOR AND THAT IS TO THAT PERSON ACCEPT HIM. With your attitude, it seems there may be something lacking there, too. We are all sinners, we have all been where he is at one time, until we accepted HIM. Sinners need help and who will help them if repentant Christians don't, who else would care?? I will pray for him, would you consider that might be a requirement in you life, as well. By the way it is not my place to condemn Jeff, it is my place to help him , if I can.

          • Theban

            Since what "seems" is so important to you where in the Scriptures does it seem like: "PERSON ACCEPTS" God? Show me that just once.

          • msjallen

            Believing in the Lord Jesus Christ as our savior is the same as accepting by faith what He did for us on the cross. Check out Thesaurus: “accept as true, trust, have faith in”.
            Acts 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved…”
            Whosoever believes in the Son has eternal life; but whosoever rejects the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. (John 3:36)

          • Theban

            Do grasp that what you may or may find in nowadays dictionary and thesaurus IS NOT the same usage of the word and especially in totally different languages as in 2000 or 3600 years ago. That much should be clear for you.

            Accepting IS NOT the same as believing not then and not now. For example one can accept that there is God but at the same one can deny Him as One in Three and disbelieve His truth and His promises. As far as Acts 16:31 is describes only what is more described in more detail elsewhere and specifically as to the origin of the saving faith. Look:

            "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed."
            Acts 13:48

          • msjallen

            If we don't accept what Jesus did on the cross when He died for our sins, we can't believe in Him. I believed in Jesus as my savior many years ago when I accepted what He did on the cross for me. The believer is at peace because of the propitiation & reconciliation of Christ on the cross and the acceptance of that work on the cross by Jesus Christ. The work of Jesus Christ on the cross was acceptable to God and when one accepts what He did on the cross one can believe. It requires faith to accept the provisions God provided with nonmeritorious provisions. I know that Calvinist use Acts 13:48 to try to prove limited atonement but I do not believe that God picks and chooses who will be saved and predestines the rest to hell. That is not God’s grace for His desire is that all come to change their mind about Christ.
            II Pet 3:9, John 3:15

          • Theban

            Do not jump all over the topics please and do not try to change them. Show me one, just one place in the Bible when a fallen man "accepts" Holy God. So far you have failed to do so.

          • Despeville

            Good observation.

          • msjallen

            I did, you just don't want to accept it.

          • Theban

            No you did not… You are superimposing things on the Scriptures so let us look at those you have mentioned and see if we can see any "accepting" of Holy God done by a fallen men:

            'The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.'
            2 Peter 3:9

            NO "accepting" here…

            "that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."
            John 3:15

            NO "accepting" here…

            "And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
            Acts 16:31

            NO "accepting" here either. Can you do better or you rather stay with seeing what is not there?

          • msjallen

            There is no scripture that says "accepting" Jesus Christ as our savior but one must accept what Jesus Christ did on the cross for salvation as our substitute before one can believe in Him. That is the concept. Now if that is not what you want to hear or believe then don't try to demand others for an answer to your anti-Biblical question. Your wasting your time.

          • Theban

            I think you are wasting everybody's time with this assertion and your switch backs. Make up your mind as to if there is the Scripture with "accepting" Jesus as you were maintaining before or there is not as you try to back paddle from it now. Jesus taught to "repent and believe" his Gospel and not to merely "accept" as you have erroneously believed and those are not the same words nor concepts nor gospels.

          • msjallen

            I am sorry you are so antagonistic but I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior many years ago. That means I believed that He died on the cross for my sins. You are trying to make it a play on words. Whether you like it or not I believed and I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior are one and the same. There is no need for futher communication with you. Don't waste my time. I will delete any further notice from you on my email.

          • Theban

            To bad you did not repented and believed… but believed and "accepted" . It is only the first one that the Bible says and mandates. You have made out of it something entirely different and that is truly antagonistic to the Bible itself.

          • Annie

            Ignorance, no conception of our LORD AND JESUS CHRIS, BEST THING TO DO, ignore ignorance. Most people can't help it. Of course it is not necessary to advertise it

          • Theban

            And to whom and what specifically are you referring if you would please?

          • Paul F

            One must assume that you equate science with guess work and magic.

          • Despeville

            :) Wiki-impediment is a standard trap here for all these neophytes that never bother read more and from original or primary sources.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The bigger trap, Humpty, is a willing disregard for rational thinking and a total embrace of delusion as reality.

          • Despeville

            Yawn Dodo. You are as boring as ever. I was traveling overseas for a few days and you still keep on ranting your nonsense here.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66

            That is because you are incapable of understanding basic concepts.

          • Paul F

            Do you REALLY accept wickedpedia as truth!?!?!?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66

            Truth? No.

            A source of good information? Yes. Show it to be otherwise.

          • Paul F

            To believe that one must manipulate terms and also believe secular "history".

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66

            All history is secular. Some people try to pretend that religion has something better to offer.

          • wesley

            Steve is correct about the sciences being founded by pagans mostly the Greeks before the birth of Christ. many of the early advances from the second century AD to the Renaissance were made by Byzantine Christians who according to you know nothing of Christ. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo were Roman Catholic. Newton was Anglican.

          • Paul F

            Here's a sample list:

            Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics); Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics); Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Your list is meaningless. I already showed many sciences that were not developed by Christians which shows your comment of "I have read that EVERY major division of science was founded by a Christian" is wrong.

          • Paul F

            The fact is you won't believe anything that doesn't support your pagan/athiest beliefs.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I do not embrace delusion as reality.

          • Paul F

            Oh, but you do. You either don't realize it or won't admit it.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66

            You are the one who believes snakes and donkeys can talk.

          • Paul F

            I do, because God says they have.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The history of paleontology traces the history of the effort to understand the history of life on Earth by studying the fossil record left behind by living organisms.

            In ancient times Xenophanes (570-480 BC) wrote about fossil sea shells indicating that land was once under water. During the Middle Ages, fossils were discussed by the Persian naturalist, Ibn Sina (known as Avicenna in Europe), in The Book of Healing (1027), which proposed a theory of petrifying fluids that Albert of Saxony would elaborate on in the 14th century. The Chinese naturalist Shen Kuo (1031–1095) would propose a theory of climate change based on evidence from petrified bamboo.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The scientific method evolved over time, with some of history’s greatest and most influential minds adding to and refining the process.

            Whilst many point to Aristotle and the Greek philosophers as the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method, this is too much of a leap.

            Whilst the Greeks were the first Western civilization to adopt observation and measurement as part of learning about the world, there was not enough structure to call it the scientific method.

            It is fair to say that Aristotle was the founder of empirical science, but the development of a scientific process resembling the modern method was developed by Muslim scholars, during the Golden age of Islam, and refined by the enlightenment scientist-philosophers.

            Muslim scholars, between the 10th and 14th centuries, were the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method.

            They were the first to use experiment and observation as the basis of science, and many historians regard science as starting during this period.

            Read more: http://www.experiment-resources.com/who-invented-

          • Esteban Cafe

            Sir, I would to God (or Science, if you prefer) that the scientific method were employed today, especially in regards to the weather sciences, aka Global Warming (the name changes to adapt to criticism, but you know of what I refer). What we have is a 'consensus' of people who are 'ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.' Why is science in such disarray? Because they have stopped, where there is big $ involved, using the Scientific Method.

            Money drives the results where it wants them to go. You want to create a carbon market, no problem: just make carbon a problem. You want oatmeal/2nd hand smoke/eggs/breast implants to be dangerous? Just pay for it—science will find a way. Scientists have become a sort of whore, in large measure, to whoever has the cash to fund ‘directed research.’

            And I suspect soon that more time will be spent filling out grant requests than in actual research.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66

            Well, that was a complete of time to read.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66

            waste of time

          • Esther

            Jeff: A lot of what Esteban Cafe says is true.

          • Paul F

            Talk about hitting the nail on the head – you made a direct hit!!

        • Paul F

          1. Christianity was NOT founded by Jews. Christianity is founded upon Jesus Christ.
          2. I should have been more careful in my statement. The followers of orthodoxy, roman catholicism, and anglicanism are all under the unbrella of Christendom even though they are NOT truly Christian.
          3. To say that all of those sciences were founded by pagans, one must twist the truth, adjust terms, and believe secular "history".

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66

            If Jews did not found Christianity, what group of people did? You do realize that Jesus is Jewish according to the myths?

  • Esteban Cafe

    Christians won't have too much trouble practicing religion in space. But for the Muslim, which way is Mecca and where to face?

  • aceituna

    God is everywhere present. Doesn't He mention many hiding places in the Psalms, but finds God is always there. Why was Genesis, chapter 1 read when our astronauts were first orbiting the moon?