- 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 11:50 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This discussion presupposes they do exist, though.
No it doesn't. You're reading that into it because you think it can help you make your stupid argument.
0
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The limits and scope of the Bible seem to change based on the argument discussing it and the defense required therein.
That's certainly true. Powerman (and then backed by you) literally tried to set the premise that the Bible was "some complete work of truth about the universe".
quote:
Your earlier post trying to pivot to irrelevance
I have not pivoted at all. Explain how my position has pivoted. I've been very consistent. This is not rhetorical. I would like you to explain this perceived pivot.
quote:
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.
It's a false premise. The Bible is NOT a "complete work of truth about the Universe". I'm confident that the large majority of Christians agree with me. I'm VERY confident that Catholics agree with me. The omission of alien life is no different than the omission of energy, electricity, DNA, or even scientific details related to the creation of the universe. It does not shake my Christianity at all. I believe that is reflective of the very large majority of Christians as a whole.
If that gives you heartache, I don't know what to tell you.
quote:
Like I had to tell Prodigal Son earlier, we're talking about a hypothetical scenario that hasn't even happened
I haven't seen you lay out a hypothetical scenario yet. If you lay one out, I'll consider it and explain how it would or would not impact me.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Why? Character limit? That's typically my problem.
I just had to take this into a separate post.
quote:The post wasn't AI. The syllogism was. I write all of my own posts. That's why I stated that the syllogism was from AI, because I was being honest with how I obtained it rather than pushing it as my own creation, and that I sought help to communicate the issue to you in a way that would get to the heart of the matter rather than you focusing on things that you are more comfortable with and avoiding everything that you aren't (at least, how I'm interpreting your selective responses).
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.
Regarding the use of the Westminster Confession of Faith: I'm Presbyterian and I hold to that document as a subordinate standard, acknowledging it as a faithful summary of the Scriptures, but fallible in its nature. When I reference it, I'm not doing so against Scripture or as a higher authority than Scripture, but as a shortcut to describe biblical teaching derived from Scripture.
With all that said, you again failed to respond to the argument that is central to this discussion. You are nitpicking everything else (including me referencing things other than the Bible as if it is some gotcha, when it isn't
). You've failed to refute my argument as to why aliens would not be greater than or equal to humans in biblical/spiritual terms (as the Bible describes), nor have you interacted with my AI-generated syllogism that I had created for the purpose of clarifying, logically, the points at hand and why you are wrong. If you think the prompt was insufficient (I used the summary statement you previously told me was "exactly correct"), that's fine, but you still haven't explained how the premises are wrong or incorrectly stated.
I think you've been exposed here. Prove me wrong.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:55 am to FooManChoo
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:
"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."
Christianity =/= The Bible
I was clear to separate the two.
quote:
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
Again, the point is that if we are allowing important things to be left out of the Bible, someone coming alone and making those "left out" claims (similar to Joseph Smith or Mohammed) would present issues with the Bible.
quote:
but that it makes contradictory claims to what the Bible claims.
That's exactly the potential conflict I'm discussing. Yes.
That's why something like aliens being left out presents the potential for conflict with the Bible.
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.
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".
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".
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.
You only claim it doesn't have relevance based on an assumption not in the Bible. I think I can clarify this within the scope of your response to try to minimize the impact/status of these aliens.
What if these aliens are made in the image of God?
The Bible says man is made in the image of God, but it doesn't say ONLY man is made in the image of God. There is no stated exclusivity, so these hypothetical aliens could also be in the image of God. Also, since aliens weren't deemed necessary to include, their status of being in the image of God also isn't necessary for inclusion.
Does this crystalize the discussion for you?
Also, note:
quote:
Post 1: you didn't respond to my argument
Post 2: you didn't respond to my argument
I responded to both posts.
quote:
The object (aliens vs. dogs. vs. trees) doesn't matter, because the dominion is total. Aliens don't change that.
Aliens aren't of the earth, so they are specifically not included in that passage.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 11:56 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
Hey my friend! Where do you come down in the aliens existence?
The known universe is practically infinite. Even if life on earth arose from a 1 in a trillion chance in the Milky Way, there’s trillions of trillions of trillions of galaxies so it’s practically inevitable that there are other life forms in the universe. What I don’t think is that any life on one planet will ever be aware of any life on another planet and certainly won’t be able to communicate and more so will be unable to ever meet. But I’m open to the possibility because we don’t know what we don’t know.
I’ve seen some of the navy pilot videos. I don’t know what that shite is - those orbs that are super fast and can change direction on a dime. Could they be gods? Aliens? Technology of a previous civilization or a civilization of aliens from another planet in our solar system? I don’t know, but I won’t jump to conclusions and I don’t have a dogma to defend.
If there are aliens, I’m thankful they haven’t yet murdered us all and taken all our resources.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nope. You're changing what I said.
I said it WAS a new savior.
Aren't we discussing this in the context of the revelation of extra-terrestrial life?
Have you moved on from that?
Can you tell me anything about the "new savior" that would force me to question my Christianity? How would I know he is the "new savior". What do you/he mean when you say "new savior". What does this person say about Jesus and God?
quote:
he IS a new savior sent by the God of Jesus and Abraham to Earth.
So, in your scenario, the premise is that we all agree that the "new savior" is truly who he claims to be...and was sent by Jesus to save us...and supports and confirms everything Jesus said and did? Is that what you are describing?
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:01 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
Well at least you and the Pharisee's agree on one thing.
I'd suggest you couldn't be more wrong
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:You've yet to put me in a "logical corner", that I can surmise. You seem upset that I remain consistent to using the basis for Christian theology to discuss things relevant to Christian theology.
That's where you default to when put into a logical corner.
If I'm wrong, show me how, but so far, you've done a better job at making claims than defending them, or refuting mine.
quote:That would be the logical conclusion of my position, yes.
Exclusively for humans on Earth, correct?
If aliens existed and said they had their own "Bible" (or holy text of some kind), with their own path to "salvation", then those claims would be treated by Christians the same way we treat claims by Mormons, Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Being from a different geography doesn't make their claims automatically right.
quote:Like I said, he was making a historical claim while you are making a theological one.
He doesn't require the conversation remain only within the text of the Bible.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:07 pm to moneyg
quote:
Aren't we discussing this in the context of the revelation of extra-terrestrial life?
Discussing significant things being left out of the Bible, which was dismissed.
So I created a better framing to examine the question to discuss how significant something being left out would have to be to impact Christianity.
I gave a few very easy examples that would clearly impact Christianity and you called it "retard logic" and I'm showing how retarded that comment was.
quote:
How would I know he is the "new savior".
For the purposes of this discussion, he is the new savior, whether you agree with him or not
quote:
What does this person say about Jesus and God?
Considering it's new, it would be something different than what Jesus taught. The details are rather irrelevant for purposes of the discussion.
The point is that Jesus is no longer the final savior and the word of God given to humans would change from what's in the current Bible.
The entire point was to start with such easy examples the impact is obvious.
quote:
So, in your scenario, the premise is that we all agree that the "new savior" is truly who he claims to be.
No. That's not my premise, or a necessary part of the discussion at all
quote:
and supports and confirms everything Jesus said and did?
No. Hence why it's such an easy example. The conflict is presupposed.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:08 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If aliens existed and said they had their own "Bible" (or holy text of some kind), with their own path to "salvation", then those claims would be treated by Christians the same way we treat claims by Mormons, Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Being from a different geography doesn't make their claims automatically right.
Even if God gave them this different Bible?
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
For the purposes of this discussion, he is the new savior, whether you agree with him or not
For the purposes of this discussion, since he is the new savior, what is his position on Jesus and who he is or was? Did Jesus send him?
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:11 pm to moneyg
quote:
what is his position on Jesus
Similar to Jesus's position on the Jewish religion and religious leaders of his time.
quote:
Did Jesus send him?
God sent him
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If aliens existed and said they had their own "Bible" (or holy text of some kind), with their own path to "salvation", then those claims would be treated by Christians the same way we treat claims by Mormons, Muslims, and Jehovah's Witnesses. Being from a different geography doesn't make their claims automatically right.
Even if God gave them this different Bible?
Is that the premise to this scenario? My God gave the aliens a different Bible? That's what you are asking?
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:15 pm to moneyg
quote:
Is that the premise to this scenario?
He keeps fighting what is being discussed, similar to you, and I'm using it as a point to illustrate his rhetorical issue.
One of his main strategies is to de-emphasize the impact of aliens by attacking what they would actually be and represent compared to humans. This is a way that doesn't contradict with the current Bible that puts them on the same level as humans. Hopefully he understands this now so he can join the actual conversation
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
God sent him
Christians believe Jesus is God. So, clearly this new savior is going to have a position on that.
My understanding to your hypothetical is that this guy IS the "new savior". In order to tell you how this impacts my Christianity, I would have to know what this "new savior" tells us about Jesus.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:16 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Jesus specifically used that verse to describe Hell (Mark 9:44-48).
And “Jesus”
took the OT out of context. That’s what the early Christian authors did though - they went through older scriptures looking for hidden messages and hidden meanings. They took a timetable for a military victory based on the time it takes for a young woman to give birth and have the child grow to a couple years old, and said “hey look that was a hidden message really meaning about a future Jesus being born of a virgin!” The original context of the worms and the fire was about the Jews in the temple witnessing the dead bodies of the enemies of Yahweh on plant earth, not in the afterlife.
quote:
The next verse even mentions the beast being destroyed and given over to be burned with fire.
Great, so you agree this has nothing to do with Ethernet conscious torment of dead wicked humans.
quote:
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.
I’ve bolded how different our arguments are. I try to determine what is most likely. You try to prove it is not completely impossible for your dogma to be true.
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.
There is a growing number of scholars who admit Jesus was a complete myth. It will be mainstream in a decade or two. Same thing happened to Adam, Abraham, and Moses. 200 years ago everyone “knew” those were historical, and now everyone knows they are mythical.
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
Simply baseless. The evidence points otherwise.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He keeps fighting what is being discussed, similar to you, and I'm using it as a point to illustrate his rhetorical issue.
One of his main strategies is to de-emphasize the impact of aliens by attacking what they would actually be and represent compared to humans. This is a way that doesn't contradict with the current Bible that puts them on the same level as humans. Hopefully he understands this now so he can join the actual conversation
It sounds like you are laying out a second scenario with him...another hypothetical one. I'm just trying to understand what you are laying out.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:19 pm to moneyg
quote:
The omission of alien life is no different than the omission of energy
First off I agree with you that its an incomplete work because to expect it to be complete would require a god level knowledge of what the universe and creation were along with how it was generated.
Second I think the concept of alien life was alluded to, it was just spoken of in terms that werent explicit as to what these entities are nor do we understand what they are today to put anything in proper context even if they had been spelled out.
Jesus was speaking through his uneducated prophets to an audience without any knowledge of science or required predicates to understand advanced concepts that even modern audiences would struggle with.
To try to hold it to some modern "high" level scientific rubric is unfair given its age and audience and to do so strictly seems unreasonable to the point appearing as an attempt to discredit rather than objectively evaluate it with an open mind.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:19 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
There is a growing number of scholars who admit Jesus was a complete myth.
this is pure BS - the OVERWHELMING view of scholars is that there was a historical Jesus - Fedora wearing nerds on YouTube aren't scholars. Even Bart Erman (dude is going to have quote the millstone tied around his neck when he dies - I'd hate to be him) says it's irrefutable that there was ahistorical Jesus.
Posted on 5/13/26 at 12:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
Page 38 of 44
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News