- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Religious Leaders Told to 'Prepare Now' for UFO Disclosure and 'Bible-Changing' Revelation
Posted on 5/13/26 at 10:23 am to FooManChoo
Posted on 5/13/26 at 10:23 am to FooManChoo
quote:
But more importantly, the Bible's claims to purpose are simply summarized in the Westminster Confession of Faith
I just had to take this into a separate post.
For the person who always defaults to the Bible when put into a rhetorical corner, it was quite funny to me that your AI post (which had an imprecise prompt from which the response flowed) relied upon sourcing outside of the Bible to support the claims.
2
Posted on 5/13/26 at 10:34 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Jesus specifically used that verse to describe Hell (Mark 9:44-48).
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.
Your lack of biblical knowledge is getting in the way of your arguments.
quote:Perhaps you should read the context again. The stream of fire came out within the context of judgement (the books being opened and the court presiding in judgement). The next verse even mentions the beast being destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. You see this imagery throughout Revelation, in chapters 4 and 5, but especially in chapters 19 and 20, where the beast is thrown into the lake of fire after being defeated.
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:I didn't say it was an exact parallel. What I said was that it speaks to darkness in death.
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.
...
Same thing.
My point--which you seemed to have missed--was that the imagery of darkness and fire in death and judgement are concepts taken from the Old Testament. Jesus didn't have to be alluding to 1 Enoch as "Scripture" when both He and 1 Enoch could have been referencing the same concepts derived from the Old Testament. Your claim that 1 Enoch must be Scripture due to how there are similarities is not a logical requirement.
quote:Of course He did. Even the most extreme skeptics have a hard time denying the historical reality of Jesus. You are on the fringe of the fringe with your a-historical belief here.
Jesus didn’t exist as a historical human on Earth.
quote:Again, I'm not saying 1 Enoch doesn't have some truthful concepts, but that it wasn't considered Scripture by Jesus, the apostles, or the early Church (outside of Tertullian). The writers of 1 Enoch clearly borrowed much from the Old Testament and expanded upon it.
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.
quote:Ironically, the concept of Purgatory took off around the time 1 Enoch was diminishing as an influential--but non-canonical--book, and for largely the same reason: Augustine.
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.
Augustine's writings condemning 1 Enoch and highlighting Purgatory were influential in the developing perspectives of both in the Church. While 1 Enoch started tapering off right away, Purgatory wouldn't develop into its current form for several more centuries.
The basis for Purgatory in Catholicism is not 1 Enoch, but 2 Maccabees. 1 Cor. 3:15 and Matt. 12:32 were interpreted in light of that, but 1 Enoch was definitely not a contributor outside of perhaps some confirmatory thoughts of the intermediate state broadly, and outside of purification. 2 Maccabees was much more influential than 1 Enoch, and that long after 1 Enoch left the scene.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 10:35 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I just had to take this into a separate post.
Oh, how that pained you, I am, sure!
Posted on 5/13/26 at 10:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You must be confused. I don't claim that all possible human knowledge is taken directly from the text of the Bible. I'm claiming that the Bible is the source of all knowledge of spiritual truth necessary for salvation and right living before God.
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:It's a fitting use. Squirrelmeister said, "the early Christians took that imagery straight from 1 Enoch", without supporting his claim. Therefore, it seems right to call it an assumption on his part, since his statement is not an undisputed fact. He's taking that claim for granted, which seems to be definitional of an assumption.
There's that pesky use of "assume" again.
quote:The claims are different in nature. SM is referring to a historical claim without historical evidence to support it. You are making a theological claim, and I'm using the Bible (the source of all Christian theology as I believe it) to refute it.
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.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 10:43 am to FooManChoo
quote:
You must be confused. I don't claim that all possible human knowledge is taken directly from the text of the Bible.
That's where you default to when put into a logical corner.
quote:
I'm claiming that the Bible is the source of all knowledge of spiritual truth necessary for salvation and right living before God.
Exclusively for humans on Earth, correct?
quote:
Squirrelmeister said, "the early Christians took that imagery straight from 1 Enoch", without supporting his claim.
He doesn't require the conversation remain only within the text of the Bible.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 10:46 am to UtahCajun
quote:I'm not infallible at all, but I do know the Bible pretty well, and have access to 2,000 years of commentaries and knowledge from godly men throughout history to help me understand what isn't obvious from a particular verse or passage.
As I said, I am glad you are the infallible source of all things biblical and can, without error tell us we are worthy of hell.
If you dispute my interpretation of judgement or what the gospel is, feel free to provide your support from the Bible. I'm always open to these sorts of discussions.
quote:I'm engaging in a theological discussion from a Christian perspective and providing what I believe to be gospel truths (from the Bible, itself) intended for the good of those who are perishing that they may be saved. If you think that sounds "proudly pious", then I can't help your perception. However, from a Christian perspective, it seems weird to condemn the preaching of the gospel for the salvation of sinners when that is what I believe is the kindest and most moral thing to do.
You really sound like the proudly pious man declaring his piety at the front of the church if you know what I mean.
If you saw a house on fire and knew the occupants were asleep and unaware of their eventual demise, would you think it would be wrong to try to wake them up?
Posted on 5/13/26 at 10:47 am to Willie Stroker
quote:From my perspective, I believe God is the source of all knowledge and wisdom, and that we cannot understand reality apart from Him. This is often times referred to as the transcendental argument for the existence of God: the proof of God's existence is that if He didn't exist, you couldn't prove anything.
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?
I could go into more detail if you would like, but I absolutely believe that all reasoning is premised on God as the source of all reasoning.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
A better question is how significant a fact/variable would need to be in order to have an impact on Christianity by being left out of the Bible
A new holy book?
A new savior?
A proclamation of polytheism?
Clearly these would significantly change Christianity as it's understood on Earth, correct?
This is some retard level logic.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:09 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:
Where are you guys getting this idea that the Bible is supposed to be the ultimate guide for all truth and knowledge of the universe?
They religiously (intentional usage) have accepted that false premise because the really, really, really want to take down Christianity.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:15 am to moneyg
quote:
This is some retard level logic.
Not at all.
You think a new holy book authored by God wouldn't have an impact on Christianity?
You think a new savior of God wouldn't have an impact on Christianity?
I think those two eventualities would have major impacts both on the tenets of Christianity and the practice of Christianity on Earth, just like the impact that Jesus's teachings to the world had on Judaism and other world religions.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:15 am to moneyg
quote:
They religiously (intentional usage) have accepted that false premise because the really, really, really want to take down Christianity.
Holy victim complex strawman
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You think a new holy book authored by God wouldn't have an impact on Christianity?
Can you specifically lay out a scenario that describes how this new "holy book" is revealed to the world? I'll respond based on that.
quote:
You think a new savior of God wouldn't have an impact on Christianity?
Can you specifical lay out a scenario that describes how this "new savior of God" is revealed to the world? I'll respond based on that.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:21 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Your lack of biblical knowledge is getting in the way of your arguments.
It generally does when he speak on... anything... bible related.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:23 am to moneyg
quote:
Can you specifically lay out a scenario that describes how this new "holy book" is revealed to the world?
Why is the method of revelation relevant?
The new savior writes it. How's that?
quote:
Can you specifical lay out a scenario that describes how this "new savior of God" is revealed to the world?
Again, why would the method of revelation be relevant?
He is born to a virgin named Mary in the Middle East. How's that?
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:23 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Holy victim complex strawman
Your emotional arguments don't impact me. Try and stay logical (I realize this is hard for you).
The post you are referencing was challenging the premise that the Bible was the "ultimate guide for all truth and knowledge of the universe".
It's a very obvious, very simplistic false premise. And, you refuse to let it go. I know why. You may not admit it.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:25 am to moneyg
quote:
Your emotional arguments
quote:
The post you are referencing was challenging the premise that the Bible was the "ultimate guide for all truth and knowledge of the universe".
The limits and scope of the Bible seem to change based on the argument discussing it and the defense required therein.
quote:
It's a very obvious, very simplistic false premise. And, you refuse to let it go.
Your earlier post trying to pivot to irrelevance shows you're having problem responding logically to such a "simplistic" premise. If it was so simple and easily proven false, you'd think you'd rely on logic and relevant responses rather than attempting to create irrelevant digressions.
quote:
I know why. You may not admit it.
Like I had to tell Prodigal Son earlier, we're talking about a hypothetical scenario that hasn't even happened. You're getting very emotional and projecting over a thought experiment. None of the conditions precedent to make this discussion tactile have occurred, as no aliens have been revealed yet.
This post was edited on 5/13/26 at 11:27 am
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why is the method of revelation relevant?
The new savior writes it. How's that?
How can I opine if you don't even lay out a scenario (presumably related to UFO / Alien life) that let's me understand it?
Why are you afraid to do that?
quote:
Again, why would the method of revelation be relevant?
quote:
He is born to a virgin named Mary in the Middle East. How's that?
If a random person from the Middle East claimed to be a "savior of God" (your term) and "born to a virgin named Mary", it would not impact my Christianity at all. I doubt it would have any real impact on Christianity.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:35 am to moneyg
quote:
How can I opine if you don't even lay out a scenario (presumably related to UFO / Alien life) that let's me understand it?
The method of revelation is irrelevant.
The variables being discussed are a new book written by God and a new savior appearing on Earth.
The question is if either/both of those would impact Christianity at all.
I don't see how there wouldn't be an impact from either, but I'm willing to hear your arguments as to why that position is "retard logic" as you put it.
quote:
If a random person from the Middle East claimed to be a "savior of God" (your term) and "born to a virgin named Mary", it would not impact my Christianity at all.
Nope. You're changing what I said.
I said it WAS a new savior. For the purposes of this discussion, he IS a new savior sent by the God of Jesus and Abraham to Earth.
You don't get to change the scenario being discussed to avoid properly responding.
quote:
Why are you afraid to do that?
I'm only preventing an irrelevant digression...one that has no value.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:37 am to moneyg
quote:
If a random person from the Middle East claimed to be a "savior of God" (your term) and "born to a virgin named Mary", it would not impact my Christianity at all. I doubt it would have any real impact on Christianity.
Well at least you and the Pharisee's agree on one thing.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Comparing my beliefs to what others are saying is real examination. I don't have to abandon my beliefs entirely and start from scratch in every conversation in order to have a real examination.
Only to confirm your worldview/preconceived beliefs, clearly.
That's not a real examination.
quote:But you are. You even said my summary of your argument was "exactly correct". I'll repeat that summary to make sure we're on the same page:
But I made no specific claims about Christianity. See? You're not paying attention.
"If I’m understanding you correctly, your entire argument is that if the Bible doesn’t specifically mention aliens, then it opens up the door to almost anything, including Mormonism and other religions."
Your argument is fallacious due to the law of non-contradiction, as I've said several times now. It isn't just that Mormonism makes additional claims that the Bible doesn't, but that it makes contradictory claims to what the Bible claims. Therefore, if you think Mormonism is on the table with the existence of aliens, either you are denying the truthfulness of the Bible (its claims, in particular), or you are just ignorant of those contradictory claims between Christianity and Mormonism. You should restate your assertion that Mormonism is valid, and say something like "those claims that do not contradict the Bible but add to the Bible could be true". That would still be false according to Biblical Christianity and the rejection of additional revelation, but it would be closer to what I think you are arguing for.
quote:It's not a straw man. It's the logical conclusion of your confirmed statement. Perhaps you would like to alter your statement to make it not conclude what it does?
Again, there is that straw man popping up again.
quote:We are talking about the truth claims of the Bible and therefore biblical Christianity, and how those would be impacted by the existence of aliens. If the logical conclusions are that biblical Christianity is undermined, then discussing such conclusions (and premises that lead to those conclusions) is not "presuming away the presupposition". I'm calling you out on your faulty reasoning and you just keep saying I'm "re-framing". If that's the language you would prefer, I can start using that against you instead of using accurate words like "illogical" and "fallacious".
By presuming away the presupposition to re-frame the discussion being had.
quote:I know that, but I'm addressing the logical consistency (or inconsistency) of your arguments if applied elsewhere. The issue isn't about merely the creation story, itself, but the implications to biblical Christianity. I've already addressed this previously, how the existence or absence of aliens doesn't impact the Bible, and you've yet to show how it has in our discussion.
There is that irrational defensiveness.
My comments apply to any religions with a universal origin story that leave out aliens in those origin stories.
quote:I've already addressed this with you, twice, and twice you ignored (or just didn't respond to) my arguments for why it is NOT true that "the Bible separates man from animal based on our abilities".
You're not rationally arguing the point. That's the problem.
They could be equal to us and it would present the same problem, FWIW.
The Bible separates man from animal based on our abilities. Aliens would be no different.
Post 1: you didn't respond to my argument
Post 2: you didn't respond to my argument
This is critical. Your position hinges on aliens being greater than or equal to humans in prominence and in salvation within biblical Christianity, and aliens would not be.
quote:We also weren't told we would have dominion over angels, either, but in the New Testament, Jesus said we will sit in judgment over them.
We were given dominion over lesser beings due to their nature as lesser beings. The funny part is that we weren't given dominion over aliens, but that's another discussion.
Also, that verse in Genesis wasn't speaking to dominion being given due to intelligence, strength, agility, or anything else that makes humans "superior" to animals. The authority was given to humans precisely because we were created to have that authority and dominion over creation. The object (aliens vs. dogs. vs. trees) doesn't matter, because the dominion is total. Aliens don't change that.
quote:Not in Genesis 1, when it lists other things that were created.
But it says they were created.
quote:I believe that the Bible's teachings and stories are original, in the sense that they reflect the historical reality of what has happened in time and space, and why. Whether other writings preserved a semblance of the true teachings or not is another matter. The argument you seem to be making is that the Bible is another man-made collection of myths and stories that share common themes with other collections of myths and stories, and that the message of the Bible is not unique or original. I'm contesting that, and saying that the Bible is unique and original in the sense that it alone tells the historical reality of what it claims, and that no other religious (or non-religious) text provides the truth, as such.
The teachings/stories are not original. The organization can theoretically be unique. However, there isn't even a single Bible so that uniqueness doesn't exist in reality.
My comment was only about the originality and origins, mind you. you added the "unique" part (which was just disproven).
Now default to you konwing the perfect Bible and version.
quote:I'm not doing that (see my previous post).
You do that yourself with your humna-based assumptions (see above post).
Page 37 of 44
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News