1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Aliens

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by clontaago, Sep 11, 2007.

  1. clontaago

    clontaago Well-Known Member

    6,406
    91
    Ratings:
    +156 / 1
    I have just finished watching a show on fox on Alien kidnappings and things like that. I am starting to believe that there may be Aliens that have visited Earth.

    Does anyone else think we have been visited by Aliens?
     
  2. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    3,475
    37
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0
    Well if they have I wonder why they always seem to contact only drunken hicks from the deep south of the US.
     
  3. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    13,234
    186
    Ratings:
    +212 / 5
    Without poking fun at personal beliefs or Doug, I find it interesting that some will reject the idea of a creator God and his son Jesus, who walked on Earth and yet they would embrace the idea of Aliens. Just puzzled?
     
  4. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    So you think that in the entire universe we are it?

    Your creator must be ****ed up if thats how it is.
     
  5. clontaago

    clontaago Well-Known Member

    6,406
    91
    Ratings:
    +156 / 1
    Damn you CW, this whole point of this post was to attempt to suck the bible bashers in so I could them hit them with the exact same response.

    It has backfired and then some.

    Just for the record, I dont believe in Aliens.
     
  6. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,371
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,466 / 74
    Doug doug doug doug doug.

    That was mighty transparent. But belief in other life in the universe has a higher probability that a single creator god, much more probable in fact!

    I do not however believe that any such life forms have visited Earth, but on shear probability alone there just has to be other life forms out there in the universe. Whether that be single celled bacteria or plant life or whatever, well I don't know but still I would wager there is other life out there.
     
  7. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    Damn you CW, this whole point of this post was to attempt to suck the bible bashers in so I could them hit them with the exact same response.

    It has backfired and then some.

    Just for the record, I dont believe in Aliens.

    [/quote]

    There's a slight difference in the argument though clon.

    On one hand we are arguing to blindly believe that god created the heavens and the earth when science has 100% disproven the creation theory of the bible.

    On the other hand, we are expected to sit back and say well there are trillions of planets in the universe (that we can see), yet we are the only life form in the vast waste of space.

    One can be argued with the laws of probability while the other has been disproven completely. While I will not admit the existence of Aliens until solid proof can be shown, I will not discard the possibility given the odds on their being life elsewhere.

    While there may well be some sort of god, it has been catagorically proven that it cannot be the one described by 'man' in the bible.
     
  8. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    11,596
    843
    Ratings:
    +971 / 7
    I have just one word about this - Torchwood.

    The reason why we the general public haven't got solid evidence of previous visits is because of clandestine government agencies cleaning up and keeping us in the dark.

    Now that is funny! :lol2: :lol2: :lol: :lol: :p

    And the reason why we don't have the facts on God is because the Vatican has a secret sect that cleans up the evidence so that we don't know the REAL truth. Only the inner sanctum of authorised bishops know the whole story and they will be killed if they reveal anything. :)
     
  9. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0hmhmnuE-a8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0hmhmnuE-a8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
     
  10. Fro

    Fro Well-Known Member

    8,337
    181
    Ratings:
    +245 / 0
    Ah the magic roundabout is off again :)
     
  11. Narcissus

    Narcissus Member

    401
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0
    Firstly let me say, fLIP, that to say "science has 100% disproven the creation theory of the bible" is a bit ingenuous at best, seeing as it's not just science saying that creationism is a myth. The Church itself says that it's a story (not a theory!). Daniel has mentioned elsewhere that those who don't believe in creationism are not real Christians (in the same thread about the Church saying that it's just a story: he apparently knows better than the Church itself as to what its beliefs are), but anyway...

    I don't doubt that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Intelligent life? Maybe less so. Intelligent life able AND willing to visit us AND keep it a secret? Well, I don't really know.

    I would like to know, though, about this whole dichotomy of "aliens or God-believers". I'll be the first to admit that my study of the Bible is sorely lacking but I'll also say that I don't ever recall being told that we were the only ones that God created... can anyone show me where it says that I can't believe in both?
     
  12. clontaago

    clontaago Well-Known Member

    6,406
    91
    Ratings:
    +156 / 1
    I cant get enough of it... :drunk:
     
  13. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    8|
     
  14. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    I know I'm biting, but I can't let that one go Flip:

    I suspect that our scientists have far less error in their understanding of the universe than the rest of us – but because they are still human, they would be the first to admit, like good scientists, that they are only narrowing the gap between illusion and reality.

    You make a very strong statement that something is 100% disporved but in doing so reveal a flawed understanding of Genesis. Your statement *might* be true *if* the Genesis account of creation is "historical".

    If is a very big word and warns us that an assumption has been made.

    Flip, so let's assume you have made an assumption that Genesis is historical in the same sense that the gospels are historical.

    This early part of Genesis is in fact regarded as belonging to the genre of myth by many commentators: but please understand this; the term ‘myth’ is often used wrongly as a synonym for ‘false’.

    Philosophers have accepted the term ‘myth’ as a beautiful and powerful way of writing about truths that are at and beyond the reaches of human understanding.

    For example when astrophysicists try to explain their discoveries, they will often use poetry and metaphor to paint with broad brush – strokes. In this way they avoid the errors and misunderstandings that come with attempts at too much detail.

    There’s an honourable language tradition here, it’s called phenomenological language. We all use language this way, for example when we talk of the sunrise and the sunset.

    It would be missing the point and very anal to start saying, ‘the earth turned on it’s axis’, all for the sake of a particular kind of ‘accuracy’.

    Someone who tried to force scientific meaning into every part of their conversations with people and refused to recognise metaphor would be making life very difficult for themselves.

    In the same way, to attempt to use Genesis as a science text is like attempting to use a violin as a shovel.

    Genesis is a profound and ancient story designed to give us the big picture and to make us feel the tragedy and magic of this beautiful universe and to listen to the God who is in it, around it and above it.

    Beginning with a triumphant statement like, “and it was good,” all the way down to the sadness of “you are dust and to dust you shall return.”

    Instead of referring to ‘quarks and carbon atoms being bonded’ – where there is no sense of intimacy; we are told that ‘God formed man of dust and breathed into his nostrils.’ How good is that?

    Myth is a beautiful and powerful type of literature that captures truth in a far more interesting and truer way than any literalist could ever hope to achieve.

    I’m convinced that what we are looking at here is an explanation of human origins that makes a lot of sense of the way life is.

    In fact I would go so far as to say that when you read the New Testament, it feels as if all the things Jesus talked about where already implied in this seminal myth.

    So yes, I am convinced that this part of the bible is inspired myth and this in no way detracts from its authority.
     
  15. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,371
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,466 / 74
    thats a pretty story matas but it is still based on theology, untested theology from the mouth and hands of man.
     
  16. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    So Genesis is fiction?
     
  17. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,371
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,466 / 74
    What he is trying to say is it is more of a feathered up poem
     
  18. Canteen Worker

    Canteen Worker Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    13,234
    186
    Ratings:
    +212 / 5
    The Genesis account does not pretend to be Scientific. It was written in an age when that sort of stuff was unknown anyway. It is a simple account of who was behind the creation and why (obviously Christians/Jews believe it was God.) Only foolish Christians (in my view) try to turn it into Science which deals with more of the what and how!!! The two are coming from totally different angles.
     
  19. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    11,596
    843
    Ratings:
    +971 / 7
    God uses a relatively large amount of space in Genesis 1 to make it very clear that He created the universe in six days. There is no mention of billions-of-years or any great period of time. However, many people still wonder whether or not the modern scientific belief that the earth and universe have existed for billions of years can be harmonized with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    Most Christians have heard the argument that the word “day” in Genesis does not mean a literal 24 hour type day, but rather that the “days” represent 6 great ages of time. This is often referred to as the day-age theory. Many people have wondered whether this argument is valid. It is true, after all, that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings, depending upon its context. However, it is our opinion that when all the facts are gathered, it is abundantly clear that God communicated with precision that all creation took place during the time period of six, normal, 24-hour type days.

    * The Hebrew word for day (yom) can have several different meanings. The meaning is always clear when read in context.
    * The first reference to “day” in the creation account is in the context of a 24 hour cycle of light and dark, “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day” (NASV, see Genesis One).
    * When the word “day” is used with a number, such as day one, day two, etc., it always refers to a literal, 24 hour type day. This is true 100% of the time. This holds true all 359 times that “day” is used with an ordinal modifier (number) outside of Genesis chapter 1.
    * There is no Biblical indication that “day” is used differently in the beginning chapter of Genesis than it is throughout the rest of the book, or the rest of the Old Testament.
    * The “days” in Genesis 1 are always specifically used in connection with the words “evening and morning.” This phrase is used with “day” 38 times in the Old Testament, not counting Genesis chapter 1. Each time, without exception, the phrase refers to a normal 24 hour type day. It is also important to note that this phrase is never used in the Old Testament in a manner which is obviously metaphoric.

    When the phrase “evening and morning” is coupled with a numbered modifier and the word “yom”, there is no stronger way of specifying a normal day. We understand that Genesis is describing six Earth rotations, not an unspecified period of billions of years.

    We see therefore that a study of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 states in clear language that creation took place during the period of six, normal 24-hour type days. Further evidence of this conclusion is given in Exodus 20:11. This passage, written in stone by the finger of God Himself, states, “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.” God, the only witness to the creation events, testifies that all things were created within a literal six day period.

    Ultimately, whether one accepts this information or not probably depends more upon their interpretation of science than of the scriptures. For without the consideration of modern scientific theories of the age of the universe, there can be little reason to question the clear communication of the Bible.

    As stated by Pattle P.T. Pun, a leading progressive creationist, “It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record, without regard to all of the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge which spared only Noah's family and the animals therewith.” [Pattle P.T. Pun, “A Theology of Progressive Creationism,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Ipswich, MA: March 1987), p. 14]

    As in all areas of theology, God allows each believer to decide which side to take on a controversial topic. It must be noted, however, that the Scriptures are emphatically clear on this issue. The billions-of-years timescale estimated by modern scientific theories cannot be harmonized with the literal interpretation of the Bible by resorting to the misguided notion of a day-age.

    [ If this information has been helpful, please prayerfully consider a donation to help pay the expenses for making this faith-building service available to you and your family! Donations are tax-deductible. ] !pray:

    Authors: Mark Van Bebber and Paul S. Taylor of Eden Communications
     
  20. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    3,475
    37
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0
    Doug you bastard!!
     

Share This Page