It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationist Ken Ham calls to end space program because aliens are going to hell anyway

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

This isnt about limiting what God is capable of, this is about what the Bible does and does not say. If you are indeed talking about Yahweh, then there is no reason at all for a Christian to even contemplate the idea of E.T's in the first place since the Bible is silent on the issue. This isn't about what you believe should be true, this is about applying the scientific method of observation to religion. If it cannot be observed that E.T life was included in the creation account of the Bible, you don't than conclude that there must be life in space just because it should exist in your mind just because you think God should have done so. Gods ways and thoughts are not the same as ours.


I was just trying to play by the rules you laid down about how christians should think.



The creation account in Genesis doesn't concern angels because angels were created before the physical creation of our universe as clearly described in the book of Job. When God was creating the heavens and the earth, the angels were already with God shouting for joy. This being the case, and knowing that God is eternal, there is no way to know how long they've been around before the first and second heaven


Shifting goal posts much?

"That being the case, and knowing God is eternal, there is no way to know" how many civilizations God has created throughout the universe, and therefore no way to know how long the alien civilizations have been around.

Its called logical consistency. You may want to give it a try sometime.


When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? - Job 38:4-7


Angels:
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!”

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.

The contrast of flesh and spirit that is the context of the above passage also compares letter and spirit, like I was speaking of earlier. They are interchangeable. I'll say again, trying to read the OT literally brings death. There is no life in it. You are trying to make a book that is symbolic into a literal account when that was never the intention.

---
The creation accounts

You were correct 3rd day

11Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

You may believe that Genesis 2 is speaking of the garden, when it says no shrub was yet in the earth, but it does not say no shrub was yet in the garden, it says earth.

How about the shift from Elohim to Yahweh Elohim in Gen 1 and 2, how about the change from everything was very good at the end of the first account, to God saw that it was not good that adam was alone.

Or he created them male and female, then its only the male. The change in wording used for creating man between accounts. One is formed the other is created.





edit on 25 7 2014 by zardust because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

You may not believe that, but orthodox christians can be literalists too. I know cause I used to be one...
don't try to glorify orthodox over catholics cause they also believe the old testament is the true history of mankind like the catholics do!

IMO ''metaphoric meanings'' of the bible is just a pathetic attempt by modern christians, to disguise the absurdity of their holy books.

Nice try Christians, whenever societies are clever enough to question your dogma, you keep inventing stuff to justify your paranoid beliefs...

Guess what? Up to 17th century all christians were literalists.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Dr1Akula

No you are wrong. Up till the 17th century most christians were not literalists. It is a modern invention from the enlightenment era. Origen, Gregory of Nysa, Augustine are but a few examples of early theologians who were not literalists.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: zardust

You are right sir, the term literalist for christians is indeed a modern invention since in the dark ages if you criticised religion you would face the penalty of death in torture, but that doesn't mean they weren't literalists, the majority of christians took the old testament literally as a historic fact.

Indeed theologists were the first ones that inspired and created the metaphoric meaning of some absurd bible stories (to justify their faith), following the path of the parabolic tales of Jesus, the difference is that Jesus stated that before he told the parabolic stories (and also his stories had some moral values, in contrast to the old testament)
\

After all none of the theologists you mention met, or knew the authors of the old testament, to judge which words of god are literal and which are not.... It was just their opinion and nothing else.

In my opinion either you take the entire bible literally or metaphorical,
or otherwise you are kidding yourself, provoked by faith, cause no christian can accept that the bible is wrong, at anything it states, so if it doesn't sound right, it must be a metaphor.

You see if you believe god is the creator of man and the universe, has ultimate power, and has done all sorts of miracles,
why you believe he couldn't have made a man live in a whales stomach for three days?



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Dr1Akula

Why must it be either or?? Literal or Metaphorical. I actually don't take most of the bible literally, or that it is meant to be taken that way. Paul said "the letter kills but the spirit gives life". Jesus said "you search the scriptures daily for in them you think you will find eternal life, it is these that testify of me".

The scriptures at that time were the OT, and a bunch of other books depending on which faction you belonged to. You are correct that Jesus used parabolic teachings, and so did Paul (see Hagar as literal Jerusalem, and Sarah as New Jerusalem in Galatians). Did some of the factions take things literally? Probably, but if you read 1st century Jewish thought, they were also reading the scriptures allegorically, like Philo for example.

Symbolism, Allegory, Metaphor were the language of the scriptures. Trying to force a literal interpretation on them is truly modern, or at least not how the early church took them. Genesis for example is a compilation of very old poems, epics, and myth, all with a bit of history in them, as that is what all myth is, an expanded history, that carries truth down through generations that cannot be kept with literal methods.

We have to take into consideration the genre, the purpose of the writing etc. when deciding what level of understanding the writings came from.

I'd go further into the purpose of Spirit in illuminating and bringing life to the dead letter, but I may be shouting at the wind with you.

You are ok with Jesus' use of symbolism/allegory so I'll end with this little ditty:

Luke 24 on the Road to Emmaus

"Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures."

If you can show me where all the scriptures literally speak of Jesus I might become a literalist again.




posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: zardust

''If you can show me where all the scriptures literally speak of Jesus I might become a literalist again.''

That's how we all started Eh?
Well I can't, cause the so called prophets didn't had a clue about the future so allegory and was their only tool. but did they accept the old testament writings such as the genesis as a fact or not? If yes they were literalists too. (at least that what I think)

'' Genesis for example is a compilation of very old poems, epics, and myth, all with a bit of history in them, as that is what all myth is, an expanded history, that carries truth down through generations that cannot be kept with literal methods. ''


I accept and respect every regions myths, poems and literature, and I agree that every writer has his own style of writing including personal ideas that might seem absurd to others.
but if you believe god created man then its seems to me that you are taking genesis literal.

for ex. I love ancient greek mythologies, and I can find many moral values in them, but I take them for what they are... myths and fairytales not an expanded history as you suggest


''they were also reading the scriptures allegorically, like Philo for example. ''

using the same method why couldn't we take the existence of god an allegory as well, a metaphor for the motivation that people needed, at that time?

If bible was presented to me like that (a fairytale) I wouldn't had a single problem about it.
But the church presenting this book as the only truth, and the origins of universe and mankind... is what I find disturbing.

In the end, I respect people that individuate from the masses trying to find their own truth, even though I disagree with it.
Nice post BTW.
cheers mate



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Oh geez... Go get your Kleenex. Talk about 'Holier Than Thou'. i think you may have just set the standard. I'll be looking forward to you whiney, judgmental reply.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: zardust

Shifting goal posts much?

"That being the case, and knowing God is eternal, there is no way to know" how many civilizations God has created throughout the universe, and therefore no way to know how long the alien civilizations have been around.

Its called logical consistency. You may want to give it a try sometime.


Yeah, how about you try it sometime. There is nothing in the creation account, nor anywhere else in the Bible or in any extra Biblical text that speaks anything about any life in space. My argument is consistent. After I brought this obvious fact up, you are the one trying to play this straw man argument about the origin of angels when the creation account doesn't even concern the creation of celestial beings, which are not extra terrestrials.


originally posted by: zardust

When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? - Job 38:4-7


Angels:
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star!”

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.

The contrast of flesh and spirit that is the context of the above passage also compares letter and spirit, like I was speaking of earlier. They are interchangeable. I'll say again, trying to read the OT literally brings death. There is no life in it. You are trying to make a book that is symbolic into a literal account when that was never the intention.


The more you reply to me, the more you just show how Bible illiterate you really are, not surprised, since you don't take the Bible literally anyway. In the old testament, whenever the term "sons of God" is used (the term "sons" meaning plural), it was always understood until recently to be in reference to angels and of Adam as you point out, because they were direct physical creations from God himself. But because of the fall in the garden, we were no longer considered "sons of God" until after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the "second Adam". Through him we became redeemed, and this is only if you believe in him and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and savior that you can even be considered a son of God. It is a title that is earned, not something that's just given to you.


But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1: 12-13

---

originally posted by: zardustThe creation accounts

You were correct 3rd day

11Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

You may believe that Genesis 2 is speaking of the garden, when it says no shrub was yet in the earth, but it does not say no shrub was yet in the garden, it says earth.


How about you use the king James version if you want me to even begin to take your argument seriously, as the King James version says no such thing. Whatever Bible you are using is an absolute perversion of scripture.


originally posted by: zardustHow about the shift from Elohim to Yahweh Elohim in Gen 1 and 2, how about the change from everything was very good at the end of the first account, to God saw that it was not good that adam was alone.

Or he created them male and female, then its only the male. The change in wording used for creating man between accounts. One is formed the other is created.


Now you're just grasping at straws again. His creation was considered "good" from the beginning in both accounts as in it being perfect, not corrupted. I don't know what point you are trying to make about the accounts of Adam being some contradiction, as yet again, you have failed to show this contradiction. Its apparently a contradiction because you say so, as if by royal decree. The first account of the creation of Adam is a summary describing humanity as a special creation made in the image of God himself. The second account elaborates on how exactly it was done, that he formed him from the dust of the earth and breathed spirit into him, and that's it. If you want to be intellectually dishonest about scripture by robbing it of its context and using illegitimate Bibles, then you'll find tons of scripture that "contradicts" itself in your mind.

edit on 25-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

You could have just said you were kjv only and I could have saved my time. What a joke.

Enjoy your day



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: zardust

Translation: "BlackManINC has dispelled all the crap claimed about the Bible so we can all move on in life."

If you can't prove your argument against the Bible with the worlds first widely distributed English translation, then you have no legitimate argument at all.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Everyone has their own preferred translation, and insisting that anyone who wants to make a point has to use your favourite is unreasonable. Barring invalid translations (like The Message or the New World Translation,) you should be able to make your points with pretty much any translation.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: BlackManINC

Everyone has their own preferred translation, and insisting that anyone who wants to make a point has to use your favourite is unreasonable. Barring invalid translations (like The Message or the New World Translation,) you should be able to make your points with pretty much any translation.


Here is the point, when you have to revert to a "bible" that changes key words, removes entire verses and even entire chapters like the NIV, then you are not going to convince the majority of Christians who, for good reason, only uses the KJV of your side of the argument. Your entire argument loses credibility by default.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC


convince the majority of Christians who, for good reason, only uses the KJV

What are you talking about? KJV-only advocates are a tiny minority of Christians. The NIV is the best selling English Bible in the world, and over half of all Christians are Catholic and wouldn't dream of using a Protestant Bible like the KJV.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: adjensen

Who would be considered the opposite of Ken Ham in the Atheists circles. Is there anyone to compare that kind of crazy to?

Stalin.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

No "real" Christians. Who put their faith in the kjv and whatever else comes straight from Bob Jones.

Ham and His ilk decide who's in and out and Catholics are definitely not according to most fundamentalists am I right BM inc? Are you an independent fundamentalist baptist? That's about the last bastion of kjv worship these days except Pentecostals but you don't strike me as a gifts kind of guy.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Ok I'll play, I might as well punch myself in the face a few times because its probably going to do about as much good. I'll use the KJV

Gen 1 Day 3
11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Gen 2 Day 6? or 8? or ???
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Oh btw Genesis 2 clearly says that God made the heavens and the earth in a day, not a week. That is a literal rendering of the almighty KJV.

I can hardly remember how we even got here, Oh yeah it was after you made some serious quantum leaps in logic to explain why its ok to believe in angels, which aren't included in the creation, since you can distinguish between angels being ET or ED or whatever. Thanks for the science lesson. Where in the KJV does it say that angels are not extra terrestrials. Which if they don't come from earth then technically they are ET. Whether or not they are celestial or not.


The creation account in Genesis doesn't concern angels because angels were created before the physical creation of our universe as clearly described in the book of Job


Where does it say angels were created? That is your main argument in this thread that alien creation wasn't recorded in the KJV. You can infer that they were created before the physical universe, and maybe they were. But for you to in the same breath disclude the possibility of alien life because a creation account is not given for them is absolutely bonkers.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Please forgive my tone and overall snarkiness.

I get heated, and enjoy the scramble, but sometimes it leads me to posting without the spirit of peace.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr1Akula

Thanks for the kind reply.

I really appreciate it.



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: zardust

Oh btw Genesis 2 clearly says that God made the heavens and the earth in a day, not a week. That is a literal rendering of the almighty KJV.


This is my short explanation of the creation account, specifically concerning the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1 & 2 where you claim there is a conflict. Since we got to this point in the discussion, I now realize that this is what I've should have done in the first place to get this out of the way for good. It says that "in the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth", meaning that on the first day, the earth, the sun, the stars and the Moon was indeed already created, so yet again, no "contradiction" from Genesis 2. Nobody seems to realize that the creation account is being told from the perspective of the author itself as if he is on earth witnessing the creation phases, which is what the Bible is all about after all, eye witness testimony, observation, not imaginations of the mind.

Understanding this, the term "let there be light" is not a statement of an actual creation, but of how it appeared to the author as it was happening. The earth appeared "in darkness" because the sky was covered in thick clouds blocking the suns rays. Overtime, the clouds began to clear out allowing light to shine through, to "let there be light" as God put it. By the fourth day, the sky was completely clear allowing the author to see the second heaven in full, the sun, stars and Moon, which allowed for the recording of "signs, seasons, days, and years". Its up to you if you still insist on seeing a "contradiction" in this, grasping at straws, because I'm not wasting anymore of my time.


originally posted by: zardust

I can hardly remember how we even got here, Oh yeah it was after you made some serious quantum leaps in logic to explain why its ok to believe in angels, which aren't included in the creation, since you can distinguish between angels being ET or ED or whatever. Thanks for the science lesson. Where in the KJV does it say that angels are not extra terrestrials. Which if they don't come from earth then technically they are ET. Whether or not they are celestial or not.



originally posted by: zardustWhere does it say angels were created? That is your main argument in this thread that alien creation wasn't recorded in the KJV. You can infer that they were created before the physical universe, and maybe they were. But for you to in the same breath disclude the possibility of alien life because a creation account is not given for them is absolutely bonkers.


Lets take a clear look at the words "extra-terrestrial" so we can put this issue to rest for good. In Astro-biology, anything that is defined as "terrestrial" in origin means that it is indigenous to our realm of space and time. Adding the term "extra" to the term "terrestrial" defines it as something that is foreign to earth, but it is still indigenous in our realm of time and space. For example, any physical object in space that is similar to earth in density, such as planets like Mars can be defined in Astro-biology as extra-terrestrial.

The term extra-dimensional however is something entirely different. It has the same meaning as the word celestial referring to that which exists outside of time and space as the real God, his dwelling place which is referred to as the third heaven, and all its heavenly creatures typically referred to as angels are described, as is made crystal clear throughout the Bible and all extra Biblical text. So there is no point in using the term "terrestrial" when describing these beings as there is nothing "terrestrial" about an angels place of origins. This is obviously the case as they were already with God celebrating the creation of the heaven and earth as the book of Job clearly describes.

This is why the creation account never mentions angels, because the creation account does not apply to angels. The creation account is all about how our little sphere of existence called space came into being, which never mentions anything about extra-terrestrial creatures either nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. So therefore, there is no logical reason for any Christian to believe that E.T's are real based on what the Bible says. This is what Ken Ham was actually saying before his words were twisted by the anti-creationist camp. He believes the Bible as literal, which is why he has every right to exclude any notions of E.T life, based on the Bible.

Ken Ham Looks for Aliens :




edit on 26-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

That just might be the ONLY thing I've ever agreed with Mr. Ham on...

Go out there and find proof of Aliens and prove him right




new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join