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: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

I understand your pov. It used to be mine. My problem is that you as a " bible believing Christian " are being arbitrary about your definition of bible believing. You have made the assumption that angels are ED, then go on to tell us why your assumption is biblical. Yet it's not. You have no evidence that angels were created. You've taken one verse from job which again literalists would have to argue that morning stars are actual stars, and btw nowhere are angels called sons of god. Which never says anything about when angels were created. Or that they are ED. As in they don't belong to our sphere of existence. Which again this distinction is your own.

I'm not even saying you're wrong about angels. Just that you are placing limits on God based on what's not in the bible. You have incorrectly assumed I don't know the bible. Sir there you are wrong. I have scoured the bible many times over. Specifically concerning angels and sons of god. And I promise you that there is nothing in kjv to back up your assumptions. If that's the case. Then you are being logically inconsistent to automatically disclude ET.

As for your view of gen 1 and 2. As a good literalist you should be consistent. "god said it and that's good enough for me" right? It clearly says sprouted not sprouted grown not grown. I thought that the days were literal days. I mean that is what AIG is all about. Proving to the unbelieving world that the bible is a science book describing creation. But now you have to put on you figurative hat to make 1 and 2 fit. God said let the earth produce and the earth produced is not God thought how it was going to happen. I mean it's from an eye witness pov right? That eye witness saw actual days. Then the sixth day they would see Adam being created with plants already having been around for a few days. But that is not what genesis 2 says.

That is the problem with literalism. It doesn't fly. You take things literally until it's convenient for you to not take it literally. Then it's a bunch of assumptions to make the bible fit your theology.

Like I said I used to believe the same you are writing. Unfortunately that reasoning is not consistent with what's actually in the bible when you are bound to the letter.

Shalom




posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Hilarious,
Creationist take another loss... why do people still blindly believe this stuff? If the aliens had an "Earth Channel" (if they watch TV) that would be the channel they would go to when they want to watch some comedy or just some plain dumb ****. I bet they're wherever LTAO (Laughing their as...es.. off)



posted on Jul, 26 2014 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: zardust
a reply to: BlackManINC

I understand your pov. It used to be mine. My problem is that you as a " bible believing Christian " are being arbitrary about your definition of bible believing. You have made the assumption that angels are ED, then go on to tell us why your assumption is biblical. Yet it's not. You have no evidence that angels were created.


You claim you know the Bible, and then claim that there is no evidence that angels were created. What, are you saying they came about by Darwinian means? This is why I don't much of my time on websites like this.


For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him. - Colossians 1:16




Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. - Nehemiah 9:6


Now I already said I'm not wasting anymore of my time with this, I just wanted to point out, yet again, just how Bible illiterate you really are.



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Maybe principalities means aliens. Can you show me where principalities=angels. Again you can't so your literalism has to be set aside for your assumptions. Just so you know principalities and powers refer to humans not always necessarily, so I'm not not discluding angels or spirits. You see you and your literalist kin have a fairly developed angelology that does not come from the bible, at least in any literal fashion. Which was my whole point of bringing up angels.

Nowhere will you find:

Sons of god=angels
Principalities and powers = angels
Cherubim = angels
Seraphim = angels

Or like we've covered that angels are ED, when they were created, or pretty much else about them. Yet you make claims as a bible believing Christian (kjv only) about them that are not based on the bible.

I'm also done with this conversation. Thanks for ending with a great argument: " you are bible illiterate " nothing shows the quality of a debater than a good old trump card. You really got me there good.

edit on 27 7 2014 by zardust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
This is such an epic fail, as a Christian I say this, Jesus came to planet earth and died for humans, not aliens in some other galaxy, and there is no hell anyways.
Those statements are just plain foolish, as the OP said , - SIGH -



posted on Jul, 27 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
This is such an epic fail, as a Christian I say this, Jesus came to planet earth and died for humans, not aliens in some other galaxy, and there is no hell anyways.
Those statements are just plain foolish, as the OP said , - SIGH -


As time goes along, the E.T propaganda intensifies, and as I look at the propaganda, I see that its always framed as an attack of some kind on Christianity. Its never about how a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist and the rest of the heathens would deal with a "discovery" of an E.T presence, its always about Christians, the article below being the most recent example. Its publishing was very well timed considering the attacks against Ken Ham for simply sticking to Biblical doctrine and stating that he does not believe E.T's are real. It shouldn't take an understanding of rocket science for a christian to see whats really going on.

Any such "earth shattering" revelations will, in the eyes of the world, discredit Christianity, and I guarantee you that it will be framed as such in the media and academic establishment. It will be a very subtle yet massive attack against Christianity, and as I stated in my video below, all of the top scientific groups that promote evolution will be involved in their own way, the Smithsonian Institute, NASA, SETI, the Vatican being my primary suspects. Its not going to be some type of grand event with UFO's hovering over cities, although this may come later with the arrival of the son of perdition, nor will this scientific priesthood called NASA ever come out and tell you that they actually found E.T life like people think they will, it will in fact be very a subtle announcement. Check out the article below and it will give you a good idea of the kind of attacks that will be levied against Christian doctrine.

How Would Christianity Deal with Extraterrestrial Life?

The giants of Genesis six and the alien deception:



edit on 27-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-7-2014 by BlackManINC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Haha how typical of the OP.....

'look over here at these craaaazy christians, they're nothing like my chosen version with our magical crackers and weekly old man/young boy dress wearing proms...'

All Christians validate people like Ham by association every time you describe yourself as 'christian'. If you want to carry this all encompassing label then you must accept all of the nuts and crackers you get in the box.



posted on Jul, 28 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369


All Christians validate people like Ham by association every time you describe yourself as 'christian'. If you want to carry this all encompassing label then you must accept all of the nuts and crackers you get in the box.

So you accept all the nuts and crackers who are atheists? I guess that means that you validate people like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot every time that you describe yourself as 'atheist', eh?



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Typically, you ignore the main point that was made and focus on a fallacy.


originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Prezbo369

So you accept all the nuts and crackers who are atheists? I guess that means that you validate people like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot every time that you describe yourself as 'atheist', eh?


Atheists have no organization, no club, no cult nor even an 'ism'.

They also don't make any claims so there's absolutely nothing to validate.

The only ything all atheists have in common is the fact that they're not theists.

Whereas Christians....


edit on 29-7-2014 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Atheism

Strange that word pops up in my autocorrect

Bet you would never find it in a dictionary....

I wonder if they claim there is no god?

Anyhoo adjensen

Dont feed the trolls



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
Atheism

Strange that word pops up in my autocorrect

Bet you would never find it in a dictionary....


How much would you bet?.......how disconnected from reality must you be to make such a statement?......oh wait


I wonder if they claim there is no god?


You know you could ask one, unlike satan and the bogeyman atheists actually exist....


Anyhoo adjensen

Dont feed the trolls


Troll? lol

How about just stop posting stupid crap, then you won't be corrected.




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Sorry prez didnt see u there

Was just helping adjensen correct a poster in a satirical way

Apparently this poster goes into religious threads and makes things up

Like atheism isnt an ism

And atheists make no claims about gods existance

Maybe u could help correct this poster as I am firmly a retarded agnostic .

So I cant make claims to gods existence

I . Leave it to u prez

And I wont darken this thread again


edit on am720143108America/ChicagoTue, 29 Jul 2014 08:13:59 -0500_7000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

edit on am720143108America/ChicagoTue, 29 Jul 2014 08:15:59 -0500_7000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

edit on am720143108America/ChicagoTue, 29 Jul 2014 08:17:35 -0500_7000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369


Atheists have no organization, no club, no cult nor even an 'ism'.

Wake up, bub.

Atheism has been hijacked by libtards and feminists here: Atheism Plus And by egotists here: Richard Dawkins And by "worshippers" here: The Sunday Assembly Home There's even been a schism in your church: Atheist Church Split: Sunday Assembly And Godless Revival's 'Denominational Chasm'

Sorry, pal, 2011 is calling… it wants your "there's no such thing as organized atheism" claim back, lol.

So, as an atheist, who's your personal Ken Ham? A libtard like PZ Myers? Or a misogynist like The Amazing Atheist?




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Such wit.....lol

Seems like some folk like to surround themselves with a forest of strawmen.

Perhaps it would help you to educate yourselves on what the word 'atheist' actually means...


atheist
ˈeɪθɪɪst/Submit
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.


A person that disbelieves or lacks a belief in the existence of a god or gods is not making any claims whatsoever. The rejection of a claim is not itself a claim....and cannot be an 'ism'....the only thing atheists have in common is that they're not theists.

I know it's a difficult concept for you to understand, but not everyone believes in a god, not everybody needs a church and not everyone feels the need to worship someone/thing.

Your use of terms such as 'libtard' and your description of feminists as hijackers really is very very typical.

But yeah keep pointing and laughing at your fellow christians because of all the 'crazy' things they believe.




posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369


Your use of terms such as 'libtard' and your description of feminists as hijackers really is very very typical.

So I'm guessing that Thunderf00t and the Amazing Atheist, being misogynist scumbags (according to the libtards and feminists,) would be your personal Ken Ham, eh?

So, let me fix up that quote of yours earlier:


All atheists validate people like Thunderf00t by association every time you describe yourself as 'atheist'. If you want to carry this all encompassing label then you must accept all of the nuts and crackers you get in the box.

There… much better.




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Dishonestly just oozes from your posts, your sky fairy must be so proud



originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: Prezbo369

So I'm guessing that Thunderf00t and the Amazing Atheist, being misogynist scumbags (according to the libtards and feminists,) would be your personal Ken Ham, eh?


Is repeating the same failed attempt at projection all you've got?


So, let me fix up that quote of yours earlier:

All atheists validate people like Thunderf00t by association every time you describe yourself as 'atheist'. If you want to carry this all encompassing label then you must accept all of the nuts and crackers you get in the box.
There… much better.


I have facial hair just like TF, does this mean we are both in an organization???

Is Jesus in this organization too?

ermagerd!




posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369


I have facial hair just like TF, does this mean we are both in an organization???

Well, what fictitious organization do you think Ken Ham and I both belong to?

Since you seem particularly thick lately, let me explain: you claimed that, since both Ken Ham and I are Christians, having faith in Christ, I validated his stupidity -- guilt by association. As you and Thunderf00t are both atheists, lacking faith in God, you validate his misogyny for the same reason.

Which, of course, you do not, because your original statement about me and Ken Ham was beyond stupid and ignorant.



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
Well, what fictitious organization do you think Ken Ham and I both belong to?


You attempted to create a fictitious atheist organisation, I showed you why that was a very silly premise.

Whereas both you and Ham belong to the same religion/cult/gang; Christianity, which is based on fiction. I can see from where your confusion stems.


Since you seem particularly thick lately


Are you able to post without making such a lame attack?....aren't you walking with jesus?


let me explain: you claimed that, since both Ken Ham and I are Christians, having faith in Christ, I validated his stupidity


You validate his beliefs.....as all Christians and do with one another. If you don't like that then perhaps you and other people should stop describing absolutely anyone with even the slightest hint of a belief in Jesus as 'christian'....



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

Forget him adjensen

He is here to ridicule and make fun of people

All the while ignoring the facts

He is a religion hater and a troll

Dont feed him
edit on am720143109America/ChicagoWed, 30 Jul 2014 09:56:34 -0500_7000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: adjensen

Forget him adjensen

He is here to ridicule and make fun of people

All the while ignoring the facts


LOL facts?


He is a religion hater and a troll

Dont feed him


I thought you weren't going to darken this thread again?

Can't resist the chance to play the victim?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join