re: Religious Leaders Told to 'Prepare Now' for UFO Disclosure and 'Bible-Changing' Revelation

quote:

---

Why do you think so many are so willing to accept this claim, with no evidence (beyond hearsay), but reject Jesus Christ-

---

Very few, if any, people are using this thread as a soapbox to argue aliens exist, and people like AlterEd are making a mess of trying to discuss what "aliens" even are, within that argument.

You seem to be confused about how discussions work, and that things can be presupposed for the purposes of a discussion without accepting them as fact in reality. That's why the language you quoted of me frames the presupposition only within "this discussion" and not "reality".

The even weirder part is how you take this logical fallacy to build a soapbox to do this Christian victim complex virtue signaling and then end here:

quote:

---

Which side do you land on?

---

Why are y'all so weird?

Most people don’t reject the idea that Jesus existed, PS; they reject the idea that he was God in the flesh. With such being either an obviously ludicrous assumption from a narcissistic fool, or an abstract and absolute Universal Spiritual Truth.

Jesus’ question to Peter “who do you think I am” pretty much defines the whole issue. There is a big difference between knowing and believing. I think we’ll all know pretty soon; albeit the transition will be extraordinarily painful.

quote:

---

And the reason you think that is because the early Christians took that imagery straight from 1 Enoch.

---

Christians took the imagery from Jesus’ teaching which was affirmed by His disciples. That teaching was in alignment with Old Testament, which spoke of both fire (Isaiah 66:24; Daniel 7:10-11) and darkness (Psalm 143:3; 88:6,12) in Sheol.

quote:

---

I’m using the Bible to judge, a

---

Good thing you are mortal and infallible or you would be in for some serious hurt.

quote:

---

Christians took the imagery from Jesus’ teaching which was affirmed by His disciples.

---

For a person who defaults to the specific text of the Bible (when it's convenient), you sure do like to look outside the Bible to make comments that support your arguments.

quote:

---

You're trying to attack the premise of the discussion because it would lead you to have to examine Christianity. This particular discussion cannot, at this moment, "attack "Christianity because the hinge upon which the discussion rests (revelation of organic, advanced alien life) hasn't even occurred.

---

I have problem examining Christianity. I have done it over and over again for decades. Every discussion I get in on this board about Christianity is an examination of it in some sense.

What I'm attempting to do is show that your concerns about Christianity in light of potential alien life are unfounded and illogical according to the claims of Christianity, itself.

quote:

---

Instead of discussing things within that paradigm, you're trying to attack it and twist it to get back to your default position. I just keep pointing out when you do this.

---

You are attempting to show how the knowledge of the existence of alien life undermines Christianity and opens up possibilities for other beliefs to be true. I'm arguing that within the paradigm of Christianity, itself, that your claims are unfounded.

The reason why I'm sticking with the paradigm of Christian beliefs is because that is precisely what is under attack in the discussion. You are not claiming that atheists need to consider other religions or worldviews if alien life exists, so we don't need to examine atheistic claims in this context. We are examining Christian claims, which is why I keep asking you to support your claim that the Christian position is weakened.

quote:

---

And that distinction is irrelevant within the premise of this conversation.

No matter how much you try to change what is being discussed, it doesn't change what is being discussed.

---

I'm not changing anything. We're disagreeing on what "superior" means. You are claiming that the Bible (and Christianity) is weakened by not mentioning a "superior" race of beings (aliens), when I'm telling you that from the Bible, itself, they would not be "superior", and therefore their absence is not detrimental. I'm not changing the topic but discussing it head-on according to what Christianity teaches.

quote:

---

You're trying to respond by minimizing the impact of a more advanced, non-human, biological species capable of interstellar travel being revealed to humans to avoid this problem.

---

I'm addressing your claim from a Christian perspective, which is entirely appropriate considering your claim (which I accurately restated, as you testified to). We are talking about the Bible and Christianity, and therefore it is appropriate to discuss the impact according to biblical Christianity.

quote:

---

This would work if the book didn't have a literal creation myth and explanation of everything in the universe

---

Not an "explanation of everything", but an explanation of the origins of everything (God). That's a big distinction.

The Bible already grants that angels were created beings, but it doesn't say when they were created in that creation story. The absence of angels being mentioned does not then wreck everything else the Bible teaches once angels come along within the text.

As an aside, I'm surprised you aren't more careful with your wording, considering how you hold everyone else accountable for their precision.

quote:

---

Not even true. Nothing in the Bible is unique to the Bible and most stories/lessons that end up in the Bible had existed in other religions prior.

---

Your statement is the one that isn't true. The totality of the claims of the Bible do not exist anywhere else. What you're saying is that because there are similarities between aspects of the Bible and other religions, that the Bible is not unique or original. That's a false statement, because there is no religion or religious text identical to the Bible making identical claims of the Bible in total.

quote:

---

Now, you're going to engage in the circular logic that this isn't possible, b/c you will default to the text of the Bible as a defense to prove your comment true, so I'm already anticipating your response.

---

What you would like me to do is abandon the source of truth and enter into your fallacious worldview. It's not going to happen. You live in God's world. He doesn't live in yours.

With that said, what you quoted me saying is true (about the contradiction of truth claims between the Bible and all other religions). This is a logically true statement as evidenced not just by the claims each religion makes, but by the effect of all the religions actually being different religions rather than one religion. You don't need to divide over what you have in common. You divide over what separates you, and the truth claims of Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, and so on all contradict each other, which is why they are separate religions. This goes back to the law of non-contradiction.

Since I'm spinning my wheels trying to explain this to you, I decided to ask AI to help me formulate a syllogism from your perspective to show how it doesn't work:

P1: If the Bible is the complete and sufficient revelation of all significant truths about reality, then it must address all phenomena of major significance to rational creatures
P2: Intelligent extraterrestrial life would be a phenomenon of major significance to rational creatures
P3: The Bible does not address intelligent extraterrestrial life
---
C1: Therefore, the Bible is not a complete and sufficient revelation of all significant truths about reality
C2: Further, if the Bible is not complete and sufficient, then other religious truth claims may supply what it lacks
C3: Therefore, other religious truth claims may be valid

Where this argument falls apart is premise 1: the Bible doesn't claim to be the "complete and sufficient revelation of all significant truths about reality".

What is considered a "significant truth" is debatable. Perhaps alien life would seem significant to us today because it would be novel to have such a confirmation of its existence. However, in 100 years, that knowledge might not seem significant at all. But more importantly, the Bible's claims to purpose are simply summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith: "The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture" (WCF 1.6)

Aliens do not factor into what is necessary for God's glory, man's salvation from sin, faith in Jesus Christ, and the Christian life (how we are to relate to God and other men).

So again, what you're doing is setting up a straw man, by claiming the standard of biblical truth must speak to aliens, when it doesn't need to at all. Since that first premise isn't true, the rest of the argument (including the open door to other religious explanations about life) doesn't logically follow.

Here is a syllogism that AI produced for me to explain my position:

P1: The Bible claims sufficiency specifically for faith and practice — knowledge necessary for salvation and godly living — not exhaustive knowledge of all natural phenomena
P2: Intelligent extraterrestrial life, if it exists, falls entirely within the category of natural phenomena rather than redemptive revelation
---
C1: Therefore, the Bible's silence on such creatures no more undermines its sufficiency than its silence on quantum mechanics or undiscovered deep-sea species
C2: Furthermore, the validity of competing religious truth claims must be established on their own positive merits, not merely from gaps in Scripture's scope
C3: Therefore, the existence of intelligent alien life introduces no contradiction into biblical Christianity and opens no logical door to alternative religious truth claims

quote:

---

That teaching was in alignment with Old Testament, which spoke of both fire (Isaiah 66:24;

---

Out of context. This line from Isaiah is talking about corpses of evildoers visible to the Jews who come to worship Yahweh at the temple. It’s not talking about hell or eternal conscious torment.

quote:

---

Daniel 7:10-11

---

That’s really bad out of context even for you. This one is talking about the throne of the ancient of days (El Elyon, not Yahweh) being made out of fire, and has nothing to do with punishment of the dead or the dead in general.

quote:

---

and darkness (Psalm 143:3

---

Sit in darkness like those long dead. In this Psalm as in much of Jewish literature all the dead go to Sheol. This verse has nothing to do with eternal conscious punishment of the wicked.

quote:

---

88:6,12) in Sheol

---

Same thing.

quote:

---

Christians took the imagery from Jesus’ teaching which was affirmed by His disciples

---

Jesus didn’t exist as a historical human on Earth. They took the imagery straight from 1 Enoch. You had to stretch and twist and contort into a pretzel and make shite up that is verifiably looney, when 1 Enoch is staring you in the face as the source for the New Testament theology of eternal punishment as conscious torment.

Purgatory isn’t in “the Bible” either. But the Catholic Church didn’t just make it up. It’s in 1 Enoch too - the scripture that was lost in the Roman version of Christianity due to their own ignorance but preserved in the Christianity outside of Roman influence.

quote:

---

There is no reason to assume early Christians must have taken their view of Hell from 1 Enoch rather than from Jesus and the apostles,

---

Where is this specifically stated in the Bible?

If it's not, you're looking outside the Bible to confirm your preconceived worldview/arguments.

quote:

---

and there is no reason to assume that Jesus and His apostles took that imagery directly from 1 Enoch rather than from the Old Testament,

---

There's that pesky use of "assume" again.

quote:

---

My assertion is that the imagery from the New Testament and 1 Enoch comes from a common source (the Old Testament).

---

And it appears you're relying on variable outside of the specific text (see: both of your stated assumptions)

Contrast this with the other discussion about aliens being more advanced than humans and how you try to require exclusive text of the Bible for that discussion.

I’m late to this conversation. But based on your last few posts, every attempt at reasoning through this topic of discussion is premised on ancient text as an exclusive source of reasoning.

It may be helpful in making good moral decisions, but should it really be the basis for understanding things not documented in ancient writings by ancient humans from a bygone era that claimed to be inspired by unseen forces?

quote:

---

Very few, if any, people are using this thread as a soapbox to argue aliens exist

---

And you haven’t engaged a single one of them. Instead, you have taken this thread solely as an opportunity to denigrate the Christian faith.
Also you, from 6:53am THIS MORNING:

quote:

---

This discussion presupposes they do exist, though.

---

You won’t admit it, but it’s obvious from this thread that you really hope aliens are real, and Christianity is false.

quote:

---

You seem to be confused about how discussions work, and that things can be presupposed for the purposes of a discussion without accepting them as fact in reality.

---

Also you:

quote:

---

If reality itself doesn't have any impact, then why participate in a conversation about the impacts of a change in reality (And nothing else) and the impacts this would have? That's why the language you quoted of me frames the presupposition only within "this discussion" and not "reality

---

I’m not saying you’re an idiot. But, with your obsessive contrarianism, and your “explosive diarrhea” method of posting, combined with your lack of conviction regarding anything but internet trolling- contradicting yourself is inevitable.

quote:

---

The even weirder part is how you take this logical fallacy to build a soapbox to do this Christian victim complex virtue signaling and then end here:

---

Deflection. You can’t engage the argument, so you’ve regressed to unfounded ad hominem attacks. Brilliant. You do realize that’s a tacit admission of defeat, right?

quote:

---

Why are y'all so weird?

---

Why can’t you answer the question? I thought you knew how discussions work?
You again:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You seem to be confused about how discussions work, and that things can be presupposed for the purposes of a discussion without accepting them as fact in reality.

---

---

You have the right to remain silent. But I suspect you will keep digging that hole deeper.