Answers in Genesis promotes UFO book, aliens are really demons

[Biliskner]

Most Christians think YEC's are wrong, it is not just me.

that holds no water.
was Isaiah wrong or Israel wrong?

Lastly, it is not really even you who I am primarily talking. Have you noticed that for every member, there are many more non-members reading these discussions? This is a mission field.

Hi guys,
The wrath of God is coming, and Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in Jesus Christ's salvation. Be reconciled to God.

Mt. 16:15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Mt. 16:16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Mt. 16:17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

 

[SBG]

might I add the following:

Matthew 18:3
" And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 25:11-13
"Later the others also came. ‘Sir! Sir!’ they said. ‘Open the door for us!’ “But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I don't know you.’ “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour."

John 14:6
" Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No onecomes to the Father except through me.""

 

[Vance]

might I add the following:

Matthew 18:3
" And he said: “I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 25:11-13
"Later the others also came. ‘Sir! Sir!’ they said. ‘Open the door for us!’ “But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I don't know you.’ “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour."

John 14:6
" Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No onecomes to the Father except through me.""

Of course, none of those verses has anything whatsoever to do with this debate.

 

[SBG]

I was adding some verses for those who are non-Christians that come to read this.

 

[Biliskner]

bump

 

[Vance]

Just to add to the original idea of this post, I was just reading some of Chuck Missler's stuff. It seems that he thinks, from what I gather from his online materials, that aliens are the Nephilim, returning to have sex with humans, creating a hybrid race. Like in the days of Noah.

And you wonder why I find trying to mix this alien-abduction nonsense with Christian teaching dangerous.

 

[Remus]

Well, I'm back from vacation and I see little has changed.

I got the book and I've made it through the first chapter. It was a bit dry and hard to get through. The cover of the book gives no indication that it is related in to Christianity. However; after reading the first chapter, it becomes obvious that the author is both a Christian and a creationist. It is also obvious that Bates is highly skeptical about the UFO reports, etc… There are a few interesting facts so far, but nothing to write home about. The next chapters should be more interesting… at least I hope they are.

Oh.. and...

Just to add to the original idea of this post, I was just reading some of Chuck Missler's stuff. It seems that he thinks, from what I gather from his online materials, that aliens are the Nephilim, returning to have sex with humans, creating a hybrid race. Like in the days of Noah.

And you wonder why I find trying to mix this alien-abduction nonsense with Christian teaching dangerous.

The strange events recorded in Genesis 6 were understood by the ancient rabbinical sources, as well as the Septuagint translators, as referring to fallen angels procreating weird hybrid offspring with human women-known as the "Nephilim."
...
It is the author's view that the "Angel View," however disturbing, is the clear, direct presentation of the Biblical text...

http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/

 

[Biliskner]

Just to add to the original idea of this post, I was just reading some of Chuck Missler's stuff. It seems that he thinks, from what I gather from his online materials, that aliens are the Nephilim, returning to have sex with humans, creating a hybrid race. Like in the days of Noah.

And you wonder why I find trying to mix this alien-abduction nonsense with Christian teaching dangerous.

ohhh... my mistake, Genesis must be allegorical then.

 

[Vance]

Remus, do I not have Chuck Missler's idea wrong? I read that link (which was one of many I read before on that site) and there and other sources seem to be indicating that this is what he is getting to. Do I have it right, and if so, what do you think about his ideas?

 

[Remus]

Remus, do I not have Chuck Missler's idea wrong?

The double negative makes your question difficult to answer. From reading the linked article, it is clear that he believes that the "Nephilim" are the product of unions between human women and "fallen angles". He does not believe that "Nephilim" are aliens.

Do I have it right, and if so, what do you think about his ideas?

I'll answer even though you don't have it right. In my opinion, I believe he is wrong.

 

[Vance]

I am pretty sure (based on more reading on his site) that he believes that the aliens are real (as you say, fallen angels) and actual creatures who are coming to have sex with humans and create a new race of Nephilim as in the days of Noah. I think he believes that the anti-Christ will be one of these hybrids, and boast of his "alien" connection.

Now, my point is that this is the type of nonsense which simply damages the very real and actual danger of Satan and his activities. I would hope you would agree that this type of teaching is not helpful to Christianity in the least. And, I think that ANY book which attempts to draw connections between perceived alien acivity and true Satanic activity is just one step away from this, and can also cause damage.

 

[Remus]

I am pretty sure (based on more reading on his site) that he believes that the aliens are real (as you say, fallen angels) and actual creatures who are coming to have sex with humans and create a new race of Nephilim as in the days of Noah. I think he believes that the anti-Christ will be one of these hybrids, and boast of his "alien" connection.

Based on reading his site, it seems to me that he's investigating possibilities and is obviously avoiding the dogmatic. Perhaps you should be a bit more open-minded.

Now, my point is that this is the type of nonsense which simply damages the very real and actual danger of Satan and his activities.

What exactly is the "real and actual danger of Satan and his activities"?

I would hope you would agree that this type of teaching is not helpful to Christianity in the least. And, I think that ANY book which attempts to draw connections between perceived alien acivity and true Satanic activity is just one step away from this, and can also cause damage.

 

[Vance]

Ah, so you actually consider what he is "looking into" a real possibility. You disappoint me, but it does, indeed, explain where you are coming from in this thread. If you think such wild speculation is helpful to the Christian presentation of the Gospel, rather than harmful, then I can see you truly do have an "open mind".

As for what the true danger of Satan, he is much more subtle than sending his demons to have sex with human women. He works through depression and guilt, through temptation to sin and away from the fruits of the Spirit. Satan works through addictions and controlling habits, through the promotion of religiousity and hypocrisy within the Church. Yes, Satan can and does possess and control people lives, but he is much more effective, much more destructive of the effectiveness of the Gospel message in these more subtle, but much more powerful areas.

 

[Remus]

Ah, so you actually consider what he is "looking into" a real possibility.

I really don't know. I haven't read enough about it to say one way or the other. I'd rather not base my opinion on limited information.

You disappoint me,

And this is a bad thing?

but it does, indeed, explain where you are coming from in this thread. If you think such wild speculation is helpful to the Christian presentation of the Gospel, rather than harmful, then I can see you truly do have an "open mind".

Why thank you Vance. Yes, I am very open-minded and I try not to discard anything at face value. As for it being helpful or not, I can think of at least one person that his explanations would appeal to. This sort of thing may be just the thing to bring this guy in line with the gospel. Removing stumbling blocks is a big thing for you isn’t it?

As for what the true danger of Satan, he is much more subtle than sending his demons to have sex with human women. He works through depression and guilt, through temptation to sin and away from the fruits of the Spirit. Satan works through addictions and controlling habits, through the promotion of religiousity and hypocrisy within the Church. Yes, Satan can and does possess and control people lives,

You say he's too subtle for that, but not too subtle to possess people? Also, what he did to Job wasn't very subtle, but it's probably safe to assume we have a different view on Job.

but he is much more effective, much more destructive of the effectiveness of the Gospel message in these more subtle, but much more powerful areas.

I don't think you, I, or anyone else is in any position to claim what he does do or is capable of doing.

 

[Vance]

OK, forget whether this is what Missler actually believes (although I think it is), you are saying you think that demons posing as aliens and abducting people to have sex with them to create a race of hybrid beings is possible ENOUGH to be worth considering? Worth speculating about regardless of the damage it can do? This is that part that gets me. Sure, we can speculate about anything. Sure, anything is possible, but is there no point at which we say, no, that is SO unlikely, and the damage from the teaching is so great, that it is NOT worth giving credence to. That is TOO MUCH of an open mind, willing to consider any crackpot theory. Look above at how AiG treated Wyatt and his crackpot theories about having found the ark, etc. Did they just "have an open mind"?

Where do you draw the line on such speculations? Would you buy into a guy like Wyatt the way Hovind has? Or would you condemn both Wyatt and Hovind, as AiG has done, because it places all of Creationism in a bad light and actually lessens the impact of the message?

Yes, I said Satan can, and does, possess people and it requires an exorcism. I have been involved in those when my father was a pastor. But that, I am confident, is NOT where Satan is most effective, so that is NOT where Satan would be most often working.

 

[SBG]

Satan works his best, when he says to Christians, 'did God really say....'

And this is the same question, many pose to Christianity today. Did God really say He destroyed the earth with a global flood, did God really say He created man as a special creation?

And yes, so it is crystal clear, I do think you are being lead astray, Vance. Your god is a god who enjoys suffering, death, destruction, and pain.

My God is the God of Life and Love.

 

[Remus]

Lots of questions.

OK, forget whether this is what Missler actually believes (although I think it is), you are saying you think that demons posing as aliens and abducting people to have sex with them to create a race of hybrid beings is possible ENOUGH to be worth considering?

Actually, I don't believe that demons can do this. That and I know you have a habit of portraying creationist in a bad light.

Worth speculating about regardless of the damage it can do?

I'm sorry Vance, but you talking about other people doing damage is a joke.

This is that part that gets me. Sure, we can speculate about anything. Sure, anything is possible, but is there no point at which we say, no, that is SO unlikely, and the damage from the teaching is so great, that it is NOT worth giving credence to.

Oh, there is a line. But like I said before, I'm not going to form my opinion about someone if I don't have all the information and I sure won't do it based on any information from you.

That is TOO MUCH of an open mind, willing to consider any crackpot theory.

heh

Look above at how AiG treated Wyatt and his crackpot theories about having found the ark, etc. Did they just "have an open mind"?

Who? Wyatt or AiG?

Where do you draw the line on such speculations? Would you buy into a guy like Wyatt the way Hovind has?

I don't know enough about Wyatt to say one way or the other.

Or would you condemn both Wyatt and Hovind, as AiG has done, because it places all of Creationism in a bad light and actually lessens the impact of the message?

"Condemn" is a strong word. This is another odd thing for you to say when you are contantly trying to portray "Creationism in a bad light". It's hard to take you seriously.

Yes, I said Satan can, and does, possess people and it requires an exorcism.

Then why do you have a problem with him having something to do with the UFO bs?

I have been involved in those when my father was a pastor.

Yeah, we've heard this all before.

But that, I am confident, is NOT where Satan is most effective, so that is NOT where Satan would be most often working.

Who said anything about what is "most often"? Even with "most often", that leaves a lot that could be done that isn't "most often". I'm sure he would do everything in his power since "he knows his time is short". Again, if you want to discount the possibility that he's involved in some way, then all power to you. I'll keep an open mind about something that we know so little about... that's if it's okay with you.

 

[Remus]

Satan works his best, when he says to Christians, 'did God really say....'

And this is the same question, many pose to Christianity today. Did God really say He destroyed the earth with a global flood, did God really say He created man as a special creation?

And yes, so it is crystal clear, I do think you are being lead astray, Vance. Your god is a god who enjoys suffering, death, destruction, and pain.

My God is the God of Life and Love.

Well said SBG.

 

[Vance]

No, I don't portray Creationists in a bad light. I only speak out against CreationISM. Even then, my real beef is with it being dogmatically taught. YEs, here on this forum, we are here to discuss the pros and cons of TE, YEC, OEC, etc. And this involves each of us explaining why we think one is right and the others are not. That is what this forum is for. Explaining why I think Creationists are wrong is not portraying Creationists in a bad light.

My question was not about whether you accept Missler's particular spin, I am asking whether you think that it is enough within the realm of possibility to be WORTH looking into seriously. There are dozens of crazy theories out there, and I would think that you show enough discernment to not even spend time or energy on some of them. For example, if someone wanted to claim that demons caused yawning, or showed you a picture of clouds in the sky that looked like the devil, or said that broccoli was an evil force of Satan, would you say to all of them "hmm, that could be, let me take a look into it" ?

Please look again at what AiG had to say about Wyatt. Now, regardless of what he had said, it sounds like your position is that they should NEVER have said such things about another Christian with a theory or presentation they think is wrong. Please explain why what they said was perfectly fine.

The reason I have a problem with associating Satan with alien abduction is because it is on the same level as Wyatt's assertions. It is on the same level as Misslers "speculations". It is on the same level as saying that Satan is, well, flying around in a space ship, seeking whom he may devour. Again, where do you draw the line on such speculation? At what point do you say, no, this is not even worth a Christian's time? At what point do you say that tossing around these ideas, especially SERIOUSLY, is creating a distraction and a stumbling block?

Do you really not see the danger of recklessly associating Satan with everything around us? Do you not see how, unless you have a substantiated, well-supported connection regarding such things, it can do a LOT more harm than good?

Both Augustine and Aquinas made it clear that it is DANGEROUS to allow true Christian doctrine to be portrayed in a way that would be deemed simply foolishness to the non-Christian. The fact that "God can use the foolish to confound the wise" does not mean that everything that is foolishness in the eyes of the world must be "of God". Unless we are POSITIVE that something is true and accurate, if it will portray Christianity in a foolish and unbelievable light, it should be avoided.

 

[Vance]

Let's look again at what AiG says about accepting "fringe" thinking:

“We also have difficulty with the idea of promoting sites which have various overtly bizarre ideas, not just in creation issues, but also linking creation issues with other ‘fringe’ thinking . . .”

“In one sense, individuals have the right to use any arguments they choose; but at the same time, particularly if there is talk of creationist cooperation, there needs to be an obligation by all to the greater Christian community to ensure that rigorous testing procedures are applied to the arguments. One of the reasons (there are others) why there is such difficulty getting creation accepted in some intellectual Christian circles is that so many weak (and worse, quite non-credible) arguments are circulating which they equate with all creationist thinking.”

Now, lets use that same language in a more general way:

One of the reasons why there is such difficulty getting CHRISTIANITY accepted in some intellectual NON-Christian circles is that so many weak (and worse, quite non-credible) arguments are circulating which they equate with all CHRISTIAN thinking.”

On this type of analysis, I would completely agree with AiG.