Answers in Genesis promotes UFO book, aliens are really demons

[seebs]

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

I'd have to disagree. What's most effective is convincing people that God definitely said something. If they are unsure, they can ask, and God can answer. If they are totally confident, though, they may not think to ask...

 

[Remus]

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.

Well, if I'm wrong and fallen angles can in fact become physical beings, then that opens a lot of possibilities. Admittedly I haven't read everything he's said on this subject, but I'll not base my opinion of it on your "particular spin".

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.

True

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.

I'm not sure how you got that impression. Perhaps I misspoke or was misunderstood.

So, going all the way back and reading the quotes that you posted, one stands out:
"If one discovers, as we did..."
Notice how they investagated the issue first?

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?

Oh, I admit that "associating Satan with alien abduction" is hard to swallow, but I can't discount the possibility that he could be involved. It is you that wants to spin this to mean "flying around in a space ship" or something equally absurd. I can't accept your spin of things and I can't sit here and say dogmatically that he isn't involved in some way. I'm doing what I think is right and not jumping to conclusions.

Do you really not see the danger of recklessly associating Satan with everything around us?

Oh, you're right. That wouldn't be a good thing. Who is doing this?

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?

I guess it's up to each of us to investage these things and see if these people "have a substantiated, well-supported connection regarding such things" and not jump to any conclusions. Wouldn't you agree with that?

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.

I see no way to be "POSITIVE" without investigating it.

 

[Vance]

I am glad you find it hard to swallow, that makes me feel much better. But don't you think that it would equally hard to swallow for others as well? So, given this, don't you think that if Satanic activity becomes associated in ways that are hard to swallow, there is a potential damage to people accepting the reality of such activity?

That is why I said that people should not be presenting such things speculatively. they should be POSITIVE before taking such risky actions.

 

[Remus]

I am glad you find it hard to swallow, that makes me feel much better. But don't you think that it would equally hard to swallow for others as well? So, given this, don't you think that if Satanic activity becomes associated in ways that are hard to swallow, there is a potential damage to people accepting the reality of such activity?

That is why I said that people should not be presenting such things speculatively. they should be POSITIVE before taking such risky actions.

I'm not sure I agree with everything that you are saying. Some yes, but not all. The issue that I have is how "hard to swallow" something is doesn’t determine if it’s factual or not. If something is hard to swallow but true, then any "potential damage" is irrelevant. Although, I suppose that we could say that what is true can’t be damaging. Hard to say.

True to form, I've been reading Chuck Missler's site. I'm finding it really hard to nail down what he believes, but a lot of it is way out there.

 

[SBG]

I'd have to disagree. What's most effective is convincing people that God definitely said something. If they are unsure, they can ask, and God can answer. If they are totally confident, though, they may not think to ask...

Hm. I guess you think Satan wasn't very deceptive in the fall of mankind.

Genesis 3:1

 

[Vance]

I'm not sure I agree with everything that you are saying. Some yes, but not all. The issue that I have is how "hard to swallow" something is doesn’t determine if it’s factual or not. If something is hard to swallow but true, then any "potential damage" is irrelevant. Although, I suppose that we could say that what is true can’t be damaging. Hard to say.

True to form, I've been reading Chuck Missler's site. I'm finding it really hard to nail down what he believes, but a lot of it is way out there.

Yes, I agree, our having a hard time accepting something is not, in itself, an indication of whether it is true. But we are generally reasonable people and there are degrees of "out there" where we can feel more confident about whether it is correct or not. It is a sliding scale, so to say. I will grant you that Missler seems further out on that scale than the author of the book in the OP. But I think that associating these concepts with Christian doctrine is far enough out there that I feel VERY uncomfortable with the association, and what effect that can have on the effective presentation of the Gospel.

Can something that is true also be something that actually be damaging to the Christian message overall? That is a very interesting question, and I am not sure I could say one way or the other. The important point is that on most issues we, as fallible humans, can not say with positive certainty whether it is true (on non-salvation issues), and so we must balance the likelihood of harm, the likelihood of good, the likelihood of truth. I just can't see how the book in the OP, and even more so Missler's stuff, can meet this balancing.

 

[Remus]

I'll continue to read the book and attempt to give it an unbiased critique. I’ll post here about what I’ve read after each chapter. I think it might be a good idea if I do a little more detail on the first chapter as well.

 

[Vance]

And I will fully admit that when I saw the book, and I read the description, and some of the other comments, I believed that the author was taking a stance like Missler, and it seems he is not THAT far "out there". But again, it is a sliding scale, and even such a less, how shall it put it, dramatic, association can be dangerous. As you say, it is hard to swallow and, unless this guy has a LOT to back up his associations, and can make his assertions with a VERY high degree of postiveness, I just don't think he can justify the danger involved.

Further, neither he nor AiG has done enough to make sure that people are not coming to associate Christian teaching with the stuff like Missler. That stuff is out there and this book fits the genre by the AiG advertisement. This is irresponsible on their part. Why not make sure people will not think they are promoting a Missler-like book?

To my mind, if he is asserting that a number of alien abduction "events" are not just delusions or frauds, but actual demon activity in some way (even just implanted NON-events), he had better "come with it" or he should not be speculating about it. The danger that AiG is talking about is too great, and the potential benefit is too little.

 

[Remus]

And I will fully admit that when I saw the book, and I read the description, and some of the other comments, I believed that the author was taking a stance like Missler, and it seems he is not THAT far "out there". But again, it is a sliding scale, and even such a less, how shall it put it, dramatic, association can be dangerous. As you say, it is hard to swallow and, unless this guy has a LOT to back up his associations, and can make his assertions with a VERY high degree of postiveness, I just don't think he can justify the danger involved.

You should have ended your post here.

 

[Biliskner]

No, I don't portray Creationists in a bad light. I only speak out against CreationISM.

Explaining why I think Creationists are wrong is not portraying Creationists in a bad light.

i am so sorry. BUT:

L O L

you canNOT be serious... lOL!!!!!!



(why is this so funny? because the WAY you do it - portray creationism in a bad light - dOES make creationists AS WELL SEEM LIKE MORONS - and that is a fact.)

 

[Biliskner]

... just read Vance's opening paragraph for this thread ...

 

[Vance]

... just read Vance's opening paragraph for this thread ...

The opening paragraphs for this thread are quotes straight from AiG. I then simply bemoan the damage this can be doing to the Gospel message. That is not an attack on any Creationist or portraying Creationists in a bad light. It is disagreeing with what Creationists are doing.

Now, if you want to say that arguing that something a group is doing is wrong is the equivalent of portraying them in a bad light, that is your prerogative. Again, look at what AiG themselves had to say about Wyatt and Hovind. Now those were personal attacks.

 

[Remus]

The opening paragraphs for this thread are quotes straight from AiG.

Actually they are quotes from Coast to Coast.

 

[Vance]

Actually they are quotes from Coast to Coast.

That is true. You'll have to tell us whether their summary is correct.