Reply
Fri 6 Jan, 2006 09:19 am
If you are not a bible believer, I hope you will be willing to look at the bible allegorically for the sake of argument.
Demons are mentioned in the bible and are understood to be the 'sons of the true God' who materialized and came to earth before the flood of Noah's day.(Genesis 6:1,2) After the flood, they were no longer permitted to take human form, but have persevered in their opposition to God's purpose and in the misleading of mankind. Having come from realms above the earth, they may be considered extraterrestrial; but are there other extraterrestrials, beings inhabiting other planets?
And specifically, have these beings at any time visited earth?
I contend that the rebellion in the Garden of Eden was of such significance that the earth would have to be off limits to such visits, quarantined, if you will. Consider the issues raised by Satan:
>God was withholding something good from the first humans by not allowing them 'knowledge of good and bad'.
>Humans would be better off if they could govern their own affairs.
>People would serve God only out of self interest. (see Job 2: 4,5)
God certainly has the power to have destroyed all the rebels on the spot, but he allowed the rebellion to continue. Why? One main reason was to give ample time for Satan to prove his case, and for God's adherents to prove otherwise. Other reasons notwithstanding, these are issues needing to be resolved only once. If, ever again in the history of the universe, these issues should be raised, the judgement will be immediate. That being said, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit interference from parties uninvolved in the issues.
So, who or what is responsible for the many reported 'extraterrestrial' experiences?
Discuss.
Re: ET a demon? What's up with that?
neologist wrote:
So, who or what is responsible for the many reported 'extraterrestrial' experiences?
Discuss.
1. False reports related to the psychology of the people making them.
2. I tend to doubt it, but perhaps an extraterrestrial alien or two.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .
heheheheHEHEHEHEAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
Oh man, you crack me up . . .
I'll be back later--gotta 'pointment with the Anti-Christ for lunch . . .
Setanta wrote:AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .
heheheheHEHEHEHEAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
Oh man, you crack me up . . .
I'll be back later--gotta 'pointment with the Anti-Christ for lunch . . .
Don't eat the deviled eggs.
demons are a girls best friend.
Good point . . . ya can't trust that bastard--he's spent too much time with christians . . .
Re: ET a demon? What's up with that?
neologist wrote:
God certainly has the power to have destroyed all the rebels on the spot, but he allowed the rebellion to continue. Why? One main reason was to give ample time for Satan to prove his case, and for God's adherents to prove otherwise. Other reasons notwithstanding, these are issues needing to be resolved only once. If, ever again in the history of the universe, these issues should be raised, the judgement will be immediate. That being said, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit interference from parties uninvolved in the issues.
Flawed reasoning. You're assuming that you know anything about God, ie: that he is all powerful and that his not destroying the rebels must therefore necessitate the assumption that he had an ulterior motive.
He just as easily could have spared them for the following reasons:
1) They don't exist, and are just an excuse made by man to justify his failure in keeping God's law.
2) He is, in fact, not powerful enough to destroy them.
3) He is a capricious a-hole and figured that having a mess of demons running amok on earth would be a gas.
As an aside, you stated:
Quote:After the flood, they were no longer permitted to take human form
Is there scriptural evidence pointing to this? I've not heard it before and am somewhat intrigued.
Re: ET a demon? What's up with that?
Questioner wrote:neologist wrote:
God certainly has the power to have destroyed all the rebels on the spot, but he allowed the rebellion to continue. Why? One main reason was to give ample time for Satan to prove his case, and for God's adherents to prove otherwise. Other reasons notwithstanding, these are issues needing to be resolved only once. If, ever again in the history of the universe, these issues should be raised, the judgement will be immediate. That being said, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit interference from parties uninvolved in the issues.
Flawed reasoning. You're assuming that you know anything about God, ie: that he is all powerful and that his not destroying the rebels must therefore necessitate the assumption that he had an ulterior motive.
He just as easily could have spared them for the following reasons:
1) They don't exist, and are just an excuse made by man to justify his failure in keeping God's law.
2) He is, in fact, not powerful enough to destroy them.
3) He is a capricious a-hole and figured that having a mess of demons running amok on earth would be a gas.
As an aside, you stated:
Quote:After the flood, they were no longer permitted to take human form
Is there scriptural evidence pointing to this? I've not heard it before and am somewhat intrigued.
Should I bother? Points 1, 2, and 3 indicate you wouldn't believe whatever was shown.
Instead, why not show me where in the bible demons have materialized?
Re: ET a demon? What's up with that?
neologist wrote:Should I bother? Points 1, 2, and 3 indicate you wouldn't believe whatever was shown.
Instead, why not show me where in the bible demons have materialized?
Interesting that you would infer what I believe based upon my showing you valid errors in your previous reasoning. Besides, that is a dodge since I'm not asking you to provide me with proof to make me believe, but rather I'm inquiring as to where you found that information in the bible. If you didn't find it in the bible, then simply say you are 'guessing' and we'll leave it at that.
It was a genuine curiosity, and not a trap.
I'll attempt to answer your question, even though you did not show me the same courtesy.
To my knowledge, NOWHERE in the bible does it show where any demons have materialized. Which is why I was curious as to why you say that after the time of Noah they were barred from doing so.
Unless of course you are referring to possession of a human body, in which case you could have stated that better and avoided this confusion.
First, on the subject of putative "alien visitations" of this planet: this planet circles an unprepossessing star near the end of one of the spiral arms of this galaxy. We are, in coloquial American terms, in the galactic boonies. There is no particular reason for a space-faring civilization to have come here. On the basis of our knowledge of physics, the proposition of interstellar--nevermind intergalactic--travel entails an enormous commitment of resources and energy. It would work a significant hardship on this entire planet to amass and expend the necessary resources for such a venture. Absent the certainty of a means of propulsion and sustaining a crew which obviate this serious limiting factor, it is unreasonable to assume that any space-faring civilization would set out to just wander around and see what they might stumble over.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that were there other civilizations in our galaxy capable of sustained space-flight (and by sustained, i mean thousands of years, which, even at a significant fraction of the speed of light, means centuries of ship-board time), such a civilization would not lightly undertake such a mission. In short, they'd have to have a reason and a goal. One is then lead to ask why they would come here. If they are sufficiently sophisticated, it is not unreasonable to assume that they can detect microwaves, and discern the patterns in such radiation which would be indicative of intent--i.e., they could pick up and correctly interpret a radio or television signal as worthy of investigation because of the mathmatical regularity of the signal, suggesting that the radiation is not randomly produced.
Microwave signals have only been leaving this planet for about seventy years. One of the first such signals would have been the television broadcast of Hitler opening the 1936 Munich Olympic Games. That statement allows me to introduce an amusing irony and confirm Godwin's Law in a single sentence. It follows therefrom that any such space-faring civilizations would necessarily have to be within seventy light-years of this planet just to have become aware of our presence; such a civilization would have to be considerably nearer than thirty-five light years away to have recieved and interpreted the signals and then mounted an expedition which would already have arrived here, and that pre-supposes a near-light-speed propulsion system--a dubious proposition at best.
We have, to date, no evidence of similar signals coming from any source within seventy light-years of this planet, never mind within thirty-five light years. We don't even see any star systems within that range which seem likely candiates for life-supporting planetary systems. The probability that we have been accidently stumbled-over are infinitessimal. The probability that anyone knows we're here and have come to visit is even lower, near to impossibility.
I do not, on the basis explained above, have any good reason to believe that there have ever been alien visitations of this planet.
Second, with regard to the existence of "demons" and Neo's exegesis:
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe . . .
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
Ah, Jeebus, you crack me up . . .
Quote:First, on the subject of putative "alien visitations" of this planet: this planet circles an unprepossessing star near the end of one of the spiral arms of this galaxy. We are, in coloquial American terms, in the galactic boonies. There is no particular reason for a space-faring civilization to have come here. On the basis of our knowledge of physics, the proposition of interstellar--nevermind intergalactic--travel entails an enormous commitment of resources and energy. It would work a significant hardship on this entire planet to amass and expend the necessary resources for such a venture. Absent the certainty of a means of propulsion and sustaining a crew which obviate this serious limiting factor, it is unreasonable to assume that any space-faring civilization would set out to just wander around and see what they might stumble over.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that were there other civilizations in our galaxy capable of sustained space-flight (and by sustained, i mean thousands of years, which, even at a significant fraction of the speed of light, means centuries of ship-board time), such a civilization would not lightly undertake such a mission. In short, they'd have to have a reason and a goal. One is then lead to ask why they would come here. If they are sufficiently sophisticated, it is not unreasonable to assume that they can detect microwaves, and discern the patterns in such radiation which would be indicative of intent--i.e., they could pick up and correctly interpret a radio or television signal as worthy of investigation because of the mathmatical regularity of the signal, suggesting that the radiation is not randomly produced.
Microwave signals have only been leaving this planet for about seventy years. One of the first such signals would have been the television broadcast of Hitler opening the 1936 Munich Olympic Games. That statement allows me to introduce an amusing irony and confirm Godwin's Law in a single sentence. It follows therefrom that any such space-faring civilizations would necessarily have to be within seventy light-years of this planet just to have become aware of our presence; such a civilization would have to be considerably nearer than thirty-five light years away to have recieved and interpreted the signals and then mounted an expedition which would already have arrived here, and that pre-supposes a near-light-speed propulsion system--a dubious proposition at best.
We have, to date, no evidence of similar signals coming from any source within seventy light-years of this planet, never mind within thirty-five light years. We don't even see any star systems within that range which seem likely candiates for life-supporting planetary systems. The probability that we have been accidently stumbled-over are infinitessimal. The probability that anyone knows we're here and have come to visit is even lower, near to impossibility.
I do not, on the basis explained above, have any good reason to believe that there have ever been alien visitations of this planet.
Excellent explination! I couldn't have said it better myself!
Re: ET a demon? What's up with that?
Questioner wrote:neologist wrote:Should I bother? Points 1, 2, and 3 indicate you wouldn't believe whatever was shown.
Instead, why not show me where in the bible demons have materialized?
Interesting that you would infer what I believe based upon my showing you valid errors in your previous reasoning. Besides, that is a dodge since I'm not asking you to provide me with proof to make me believe, but rather Iamb inquiring as to where you found that information in the bible. If you didn't find it in the bible, then simply say you are 'guessing' and we'll leave it at that.
It was a genuine curiosity, and not a trap.
I'll attempt to answer your question, even though you did not show me the same courtesy.
To my knowledge, NOWHERE in the bible does it show where any demons have materialized. Which is why I was curious as to why you say that after the time of Noah they were barred from doing so.
Unless of course you are referring to possession of a human body, in which case you could have stated that better and avoided this confusion.
Sigh;
Genesis 6:2 refers to angels materializing as humans. I'm not expecting you to believe it, just recognize that is what the bible says.
Later Jude refers to the same events, saying "And the angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place he has reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6)
That the eternal bonds do not prohibit these creatures from influencing affairs on earth is evident from the frequent mention of them.
As for your pointing out 'valid errors in my reasoning', I humbly borrow from the words of one of our esteemed elder statesmen:
Setanta wrote:hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe . . .
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
Setanta avers there have never been alien visitations to our planet, a proposition to which I happen to subscribe.
He also apparently does not believe in demons. That would be understandable from one who sees no reason to believe in God.
As yet, Setanta has not signed in on whether or not the bible supports the existence of demons.
Of course, that would not be important were it not for the disclaimer in my original post.
But I am glad to see him in a good humor. Perhaps he will tell us a funny demon joke.
I know a whole raft of hilarious Jesus jokes . . . would that do, Neo?
By the by, i don't aver anything with regard to the fact of there having been or not having been alien visitations--my remarks were addressed to the probability of such events. As for the Bobble, i haven't seen the word demon yet--but then, that's what obscure exegesis is all about, ain't it, Boss?
Re: ET a demon? What's up with that?
neologist wrote:Sigh;
Genesis 6:2 refers to angels materializing as humans. I'm not expecting you to believe it, just recognize that is what the bible says.
What you expect is of no consequence. You do not know enough about me to make any judgement whatsoever on what to expect.
I've read 6:2, and must confess to have missed that portion in the past. Follow up research shows some interesting, yet somewhat controversial translations on just what that passage means. Despite your apparent and nonsensical reluctance in passing over the verse, I appreciate you doing so.
Quote:As for your pointing out 'valid errors in my reasoning', I humbly borrow from the words of one of our esteemed elder statesmen:
Setanta wrote:hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe . . .
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA . . .
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
Alright, I'll concede that you might possibly know the mind of God and the reasoning why he does things. I certainly don't know enough about it to claim you don't with any degree of certainty.
The Bible does not refer to them as demons. The Bible refers to them as devils.
From Merriam-Webster:
devil
Main Entry: 1dev·il
Pronunciation: 'de-v&l dialect 'di-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English devel, from Old English dEofol, from Late Latin diabolus, from Greek diabolos, literally, slanderer, from diaballein to throw across, slander, from dia- + ballein to throw; probably akin to Sanskrit gurate he lifts up
1 often capitalized : the personal supreme spirit of evil often represented in Jewish and Christian belief as the tempter of mankind, the leader of all apostate angels, and the ruler of hell -- usually used with the; often used as an interjection, an intensive, or a generalized term of abuse <what the devil is this?> <the devil you say!>[/color]
2 : an evil spirit : DEMON
Momma Angel wrote:The Bible does not refer to them as demons. The Bible refers to them as devils.
To be more precise, if you search throgh the King James Version they are referred to as 'devils', the NIV refers to them as 'demons', as does the Holman Christian Standard Bible.
Guess it's all in the interpretation.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace