<

Don’t Believe Christianity Until You Believe in Aliens

If you like the Jesus resurrection story, you should like the alien story better!Do you think that Jesus rose from the dead? That he was virgin born? That he sits in heaven at the right hand of the creator of the universe?

That the gospel story is actual history is an immense claim, but Christians say they have the evidence. Let’s test that. If Christians accept this claim, then, to be consistent, they must also accept any claim with better evidence. Such a claim is that space aliens have visited the earth.

Let’s compare evidence for these two claims point by point.

1. Recentness of Event. You can interview people today who claim to have seen UFOs or encountered aliens. To understand the gospel claims, we must peer back across 2000 years of history.

2. Number of Sources. Thousands claim to have been abducted, and the number who claim only to have seen aliens or their technology must be far higher. There were only four gospels, and those aren’t even independent accounts.

3. Period of Oral History. The period of oral history is negligible for many alien claims. It may be just hours or days from a claimed event until a newspaper story. By contrast, the Gospels were written decades after the claimed events.

4. Reliability of Source. It may be easy to imagine alien claimants as insane, drunk, or uneducated, but one psychiatrist studied 800 claimed abductees and was struck with the ordinariness of the population. Another survey reported that this group is no more prone to mental disorder than the general population.

Question the sanity of those who claims to have seen aliens if you want, but we at least have something tangible—interviews with those people and people who know them, police records, and so on. With Peter and Paul or some other Christian patriarch we have 2000-year-old stories. Who’s to say if they’re accurate?

5. Natural vs. Supernatural. The supposed aliens came from a planet (we know about planets) on which there was intelligent life (we know about intelligent life), and they presumably got here in a spaceship (we know about technology and spaceships). This is 100 percent natural.

Science keeps finding strange new animals on earth living in extreme environments—worms that live miles underground, in glaciers, or in hot or cold places at the bottom of the ocean. Is it hard to imagine animals on other worlds? Their discovery would be surprising or even shocking, but we wouldn’t need to discard any scientific laws if aliens presented themselves.

By contrast, the Gospel story requires you to believe in supernatural beings and supernatural events. We have plenty of claims but no scientific consensus that even one is valid.

6. Cultural Gulf. The evidence for aliens is from our time, from our culture, and in our language. By contrast, the gospel story is from a culture long ago and far away, and the Greek gospels are already one culture removed from the actual events. Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic and came from a Jewish environment; the gospels were written in Greek by authors who lived in a Greek environment.

7. Contradictions. Any contradiction between alien claims can be chalked up to a different space ship or a different alien race. By contrast, the four gospel accounts are trying to document the same events.

8. Quality of Evidence. On the alien side, you talk directly to people who claim to be eyewitnesses. The argument that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses or close to them is a flimsy tradition.

Our oldest complete copies of the New Testament date from the fourth century. Yes, we do have fragments of New Testament books that date earlier, but these are incomplete and are still copies from one to two centuries after the original authorship.

9. Criterion of Embarrassment. Christians ask, “But who would make up the gospel story? Who would endure the persecution?” First, I never claimed that anyone made up the story, simply that the supernatural elements in the gospel story are easily explained by supposing that it evolved as it was passed along. Second, that defense crumbles when we consider that alien claimants tell their story today in the face of much potential ridicule. Is a story in the face of persecution strong support for the truth of the story? Okay—then consider it strong evidence for alien claims.

If the Gospel stories are believable, shouldn’t alien stories be far more believable? Seen the other way around, Christians who read this and think up many objections to the alien argument need to apply those same objections against the gospel story to see if it holds up.

I think they’ll find that the net that pulls in Christianity will pull in a lot of bycatch as well.

Reality is that which,
when you stop believing in it,
doesn’t go away.
— Philip K. Dick

Photo credit

About Bob Seidensticker
  • Greg G.

    In Mark 2:23, Jesus and his disciples walked through a grain field and began to pick some grain. Aliens are accused of making crop circles.

    In Mark 5, Jesus sent 2,000 pigs into the sea. UFOs are said to eviscerate cattle.

    In Luke 24:31, Jesus disappears from sight. UFOs have done that.

  • http://www.hongkongudy.com Karl Udy

    According to what you’ve written, UFO accounts are more believable than almost all history.

    • OverlappingMagisteria

      …Except for that whole “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” thing.

      - People fighting wars and electing leaders: pretty ordinary.
      - Extra-terrestrials traveling light-years to probe some cattle and draw patterns in crops: pretty extraordinary.
      - A man who is both god and his son walks on water, turns water into wine, dies and comes back to life to keep people from suffering eternally, then flies up into the sky: I’ll let you be the judge of which category that fits into.

      • Litesp33d

        “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” I have come to realise is totally wrong.
        How about some ordinary evidence? How about ANY evidence that stands critical analysis.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Karl:

      OM summarized it nicely. Alexander or Julius Caesar winning a battle isn’t hard to believe since we’re quite familiar with the concept. Lots of examples in our recent past. But aliens? No–we have zero examples where we can all agree that aliens have been here.

      And, of course, the Christian claims take it even further into the realm of the incredible.

      I think the post is pretty clear.

    • Stephen

      Karl,
      The more improbable a claim, the stronger the evidence must be before we should rationally accept the claim.

      If the claim is very improbable, then the evidence must be so strong that it would be at least as improbable that the evidence in question could exist without the event having occurred.

      • http://www.hongkongudy.com Karl Udy

        Interesting. Bob writes a post comparing the evidence between UFOs and Christianity and notes perceived advantages in the evidence for UFOs. When I point out that UFOs also have these perceived advantages over history I am met with three people telling me the same thing – that it is not the comparison of evidence that is important, it is how incredible we think a claim is.

        Interestingly I don’t find either of the scenarios that OM suggested as intrinsically extraordinary. If you take the existence of inter-galactic travelling aliens (a concept which is eminently possible, but we just don’t have a lot of hard evidence for it), then how different would crop circles be from humans planting a flag on the moon? And would it nto be perfectly natural to expect said aliens to have a scientific curiosity about the inhabitants of planets they are visiting?

        Now I have no intention to be an apologist for UFO sightings but I do believe the claims should be judged on the evidence, not on how incredible they sound.

        And, naturally I don’t find the claims of Christianity incredible in light of the existence of a supreme, creator God.

        And both the claim that God exists, and the claim that God does not exist could be considered to be extraordinary, which leaves us in a quandary, as we know it must be one or the other.

        The more improbable a claim, the stronger the evidence must be before we should rationally accept the claim

        This is simply not true. The evidence that you have won the grand prize in a lottery or the lowest division prize is the same – the numbers on the ticket, yet the probability of each is radically different.

        • Kodie

          I could easily believe you got a low prize without seeing your ticket. The lottery commission (or the convenience store clerk) won’t give you your prize without seeing the strongest evidence, the ticket. Here in Massachusetts, if your prize is below $100, you can cash it at the convenience store (or wherever they sell lottery tickets), but if it is over $100, you have to take a trip to the nearest lottery commission office. I know you are saying it’s the numbers themselves, but unless I am in charge of handing you the prize money, I don’t need to see your ticket to believe you guessed a few numbers that matched and won enough money to buy a couple sandwiches. You don’t need more evidence to be handed a bigger prize – the numbers on the ticket is the best and most evident evidence you can have, as well as the only acceptable evidence needed by the lottery commission. But even for low prizes, they let non-commission employees handle the lesser prizes without worrying they will hand out the wrong amount of money to a ticket with the wrong date on it or anything.

        • Kodie

          The claim that god does not exist is not extraordinary. You don’t see god, you see things you attribute to god, but none of them are god. That is your imagination jumping to an extraordinary, magical conclusion without evidence. Aliens are far more probable, that’s the point. Aliens would not be magical. Yes, we could be aliens, we are evidence of life in the universe – all life on earth is evidence that life is diverse and can come in many forms. Do you propose there is a magical god who made the whole vast universe with no life in it except for our planet just so you could wonder about stuff that none of the other animals do? That’s your evidence for god, but not your evidence that there is intelligent life in the universe?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Karl:

          Christianity is less credible than UFOs, and UFOs are less credible than history.

          Pick something from history–a battle, a speech, a natural disaster. We have plenty of examples of that. With UFOs, we have zero examples (which is why history beats UFOs), though the categories we’re talking about–technology, space craft, intelligent life forms, eagerness to explore–are well understood (which is why UFOs beats Christianity).

          Pretty simple, when you stop to think about it.

          how different would crop circles be from humans planting a flag on the moon?

          We have zero examples of alien-created crop circles, but several of flags on the moon.

          I do believe the claims should be judged on the evidence, not on how incredible they sound.

          I’m sure you’ll agree that things we have precedents for are more believable if they happen again than something in a completely new category.

  • http://www.hongkongudy.com Karl Udy

    With UFOs, we have zero examples (which is why history beats UFOs), though the categories we’re talking about–technology, space craft, intelligent life forms, eagerness to explore–are well understood (which is why UFOs beats Christianity).

    This is something of a change of tune from your original post which said that UFOs were to be believed over the claims of Christianity because of: recentness of events, number of sources, period of Oral History, reliability of Source, natural vs supernatural, cultural gulf, contradictions, quality of evidence, criterion of embarrassment. Now you say UFOs are to be believed over Christianity because “the categories we’re talking about–technology, space craft, intelligent life forms, eagerness to explore–are well understood”.

    Is this an admission that your original list is not much use, as it would indicate UFOs are to believed ahead of history?

    • OverlappingMagisteria

      Karl, this really is not that difficult.

      There are two factors that need to be considered in any claim: (1) How extraordinary it is, and (2) the amount/quality of evidence for it. You do not decide whether a claim is true or false by just looking at one of those factors, but by a combination of both.
      You yourself do this intuitivly all the time. I am sure that you would have no problem believing that I have a dog based on one photo of me and my dog, but you would not believe that I own a Chinook helicopter based on one photo of me and my military copter. Why is this? Because the claim of me owning a Chinook is way more extraordinary. However, if I provided more evidence, say paperwork of ownership or, even better, I came and picked you up to go for a ride in the helicopter, then you might believe me. Do you see how the combination of both the extraordinariness of the claim and quality/quantity of evidence are used together? It’s kind of like doing ratios in math class.

      Bob tackled factor (2), the quantity and quality of evidence in his article, and wrote that the quantity/quality of evidence for UFOs is greater than that for Christianity. He did not mention factor (1), the extraordinariness of the claim, in the article, but clarified his position on it in the comments. I think that most people will agree that the extraordinariness of both UFOs and Christian claims are on at least similar grounds, so I think it was justified to take that as an assumption for the article.

      Bob is not changing his criteria, but talking about two different factors, both of which in his view make UFO claims more likely than Christianity.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Karl:

      Just a few comments in addition to those by OM.

      This is something of a change of tune from your original post …

      In approaching this from another angle so you could get my point, perhaps. No, this isn’t a retrenchment.

      Is this an admission that your original list is not much use, as it would indicate UFOs are to believed ahead of history?

      Nope. If there’s actually something unclear about my point (you got new insights based on my last comments, perhaps), let me know. I don’t know why you would conclude this, but maybe I’m still unclear.

      • http://www.hongkongudy.com Karl Udy

        Bob,
        your “I can believe it happened because I understand how it could happen” is a poor argument on many levels. Firstly, you state elsewhere that you believe the UFO reports are unlikely to be true, so it is not the case that you will simply believe something to be true because you understand how it can happen, and rightly so, in my opinion.

        I believe that our understanding of how things happen is relevant to a point, but only as far as our understanding goes. Yes, you understand technology (probably better than me), you understand intelligent life forms – but only human ones, and the space travel and eagerness to explore are also things that you only understand in a human context. You could not claim to have any understanding of things in a non-human context (unless you want to claim some personal experience with aliens) – which means that when talking about aliens and UFOs what you are really saying is that you can imagine it.

        What I suspect is the case is that you find it hard to imagine that the Christian version of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is true. In which case, it is a issue of your imagination that makes you consider UFOs more likely than Christianity.

        I anticipate that you will claim that you have enough understanding about our world to know that dead people don’t come back to life. But can you claim to know that God would not raise someone from the dead? Because you must remember that the Christian claim is not that Jesus spontaneously rose from the dead due to some undocumented natural cause, or for no reason whatsoever.

        But when you produce a list of reasons for why UFOs are to be believed over Christianity, that would also function as a list of reasons for why UFOs are to be believed over history, then don’t expect many people to be persuaded. Your reasoning would be aided by investigating why most reports of UFOs are not believed (although interestingly a significant portion are left as simply “unexplained”), and checking to see if those reasons for disbelief also apply to Christianity.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Karl:

          you state elsewhere that you believe the UFO reports are unlikely to be true

          Right, and UFO reports are still more reliable than the gospels.

          You could not claim to have any understanding of things in a non-human context

          Another way of looking at the question is: how much will your mind be blown if (1) aliens have visited the earth and (2) if Christianity is true? The point of the post is that it would indeed be mind blowing to learn that aliens have been here (or are still here), but not much at all compared to if Christianity is true.

          when talking about aliens and UFOs what you are really saying is that you can imagine it.

          I’m saying that the leap with aliens is, all things considered, not all that big since it would be simply more of the same (intelligent life forms, other habitable planets, advanced technology, spaceships).

          What I suspect is the case is that you find it hard to imagine that the Christian version of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is true.

          Right, because it’s not simply more of the same. It requires a very new concept–the supernatural.

          it is a issue of your imagination that makes you consider UFOs more likely than Christianity.

          This isn’t just a Bob thing. This is the difference in change in degree (UFOs) vs. change in kind (Christianity).

          you will claim that you have enough understanding about our world to know that dead people don’t come back to life.

          I’m sure that you and I agree that God either resurrects zero people or very, very few people. We know that almost everybody dies and stays dead. “Someone was raised from the dead” is a remarkable and almost unique claim for both of us.

          But can you claim to know that God would not raise someone from the dead?

          No.

          But when you produce a list of reasons for why UFOs are to be believed over Christianity, that would also function as a list of reasons for why UFOs are to be believed over history

          I’ve already responded to this. Pick up from my last rebuttal of this (erroneous, IMO) thinking; don’t simply repeat your claim.

          Your reasoning would be aided by investigating why most reports of UFOs are not believed (although interestingly a significant portion are left as simply “unexplained”), and checking to see if those reasons for disbelief also apply to Christianity.

          I’m not sure what you’re thinking here, so elaborate a bit.

          Most reports of UFOs are not believed, I would think, because the vast majority of the ones that have been investigated have been successfully put into boring bins: misidentification, hoax, drunkenness or other organic problem with perception, etc. Where does Christianity fit in?

        • http://www.hongkongudy.com Karl Udy

          Most reports of UFOs are not believed, I would think, because the vast majority of the ones that have been investigated have been successfully put into boring bins: misidentification, hoax, drunkenness or other organic problem with perception, etc. Where does Christianity fit in?

          My point exactly.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Karl:

          What is your point? That religion is in the same boat? That when the Christian looks around at the religious landscape, he sees Hinduism, Shinto, and a thousand other religions, all of which are false? The other guys’ religions make similar claims to Christianity (miracles, god(s)), but, like UFOs, the Christian puts their claims into boring bins–wishful thinking, tradition, and so on.

        • http://www.hongkongudy.com Karl Udy

          Bob,

          What is your point?

          My point is if you want to compare Christianity’s credibility as being even more lacking than UFO claims, then how do you classify Christianity’s claims? Misidentification? Hoax? Or what?

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Karl: No, not these bins. Different (but also well-populated) bins.

        • Kodie

          What I suspect is the case is that you find it hard to imagine that the Christian version of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection is true. In which case, it is a issue of your imagination that makes you consider UFOs more likely than Christianity.

          I have no trouble believing that a Jesus lived and was executed by crucifixion. When you put historically possible events (a person lived – because we know that about people; and a person was crucified – because we know that about the era) in the same category of “well he also magically vaporized so it must be true that he lived, he preached, he got told on, was sacrificed, was really god, and really did resurrect” as a whole historical event, you lose people. Whether Jesus lived at all, lived and didn’t die, lived and died as relayed in the NT, or never lived is not really important, although you may count it as historical fact based on some scholarly works. Leaping to the event where his body was removed from a guarded tomb and must have went to heaven so that means you’re saved if you ignore how crazy and improbable that would have to be as a historical fact is not going to fly.

          UFOs are more probable than that. We already know just as much about UFOs being probable that Jesus may have lived and died. If you want to say that’s realistic enough to be plausible, nobody is going to argue with you, and why bother – it doesn’t matter unless he also resurrected. There, you are getting into an idea that holds your personal eternity in the balance, if it were true. It’s not reconcilable with any other thing we could compare it to, yet it’s more vitally important to believe it (if it were true) than any other event you could name, aside from all the other religions of the world.

          But when you produce a list of reasons for why UFOs are to be believed over Christianity, that would also function as a list of reasons for why UFOs are to be believed over history, then don’t expect many people to be persuaded. Your reasoning would be aided by investigating why most reports of UFOs are not believed (although interestingly a significant portion are left as simply “unexplained”), and checking to see if those reasons for disbelief also apply to Christianity.

          Here is where I think you didn’t really read or understand Bob’s article. People with a disbelief of UFOs I don’t think most of the time are against the idea that it could happen, but the unbelievability from the point of view of the person telling the story. It has a “boy who cried wolf” thread to it. I guess there are some people who also believe that the earth was formed less than 10,000 years ago and humans were created from dirt and not evolved, who might also believe we’re totally alone in the universe, i.e. aliens would seem impossible to them since it conflicts with the belief that the earth is unique, life is special, and humans are favored, but they are denying evidence that we exist.

          We are intelligent life, we build space vehicles, and we go exploring space – not as far as we would need to go to find inhabitants (intelligent or not) of another planet – but it wasn’t too long ago that (I think) people presumed life existed on Mars, if not every other planet of our solar system. And it wasn’t too long ago that, as intelligent as we are as a species, we hadn’t reached the progress necessary to leave earth physically. What we are most familiar with is life less intelligent than we are, life that originated several billion years ago, and took still another couple billion to be slightly more complex. It is not supernatural at all for life to exist on another planet, despite the length of time for it to come to possibly having the technology required to leave and seek other living creatures in the universe. We have been aiming for that, it’s not impossible, it just takes a long time. If someone is going to be skeptical that aliens visited is not because it is scientifically impossible, in the same exact way that it would not be impossible for Jesus to have existed.

          If someone instead claimed that Superman flew by their office window, that would be impossible. Although some report that Spiderman was outside the window, we know about costumes, and we saw pictures of the window washers outside the children’s hospital, and we’ve seen demonstrations about those suction things to climb walls that some daredevils tried, but that is the logical explanation for seeing a superhero performing feats – science and evidence that it is an illusion and not, in fact, the comic book persona in real life. That is comparable with a resurrection. You are not separating the resurrection from a historically plausible biographical story of a man who may really have lived that nobody otherwise cares if it’s true or not.

          I would also point out to you that I recognize that Christianity itself is a historical fact, the religion is, and does impact history and reality, but that’s not the same thing as everyone who believes it is saved from eternal hellfire because a corpse allegedly vanished with no explanation. For every reason Bob listed, UFOs are to be believed in front of that. The people who say they saw UFOs tell a more plausible story than anyone saying one resurrection 2000 years ago has anything (everything!) to do with what happens to me after I die. UFO claims do not have historical veracity of evidence, and they do have a lot of mistaken (at least) people telling them, but that just makes it difficult to believe when it does happen on the basis that it hasn’t happened yet, and the witnesses are found to be most probably mistaken, not that it could not have happened. There’s also nothing in the stories that has a bearing on my personal eternal fate if I don’t really believe in it. There is no “shut up and believe this or else” about any essentially incredible account of UFOs. I would also fully expect that anyone who says they saw aliens and a UFO would expect exactly no one to believe them. I’m not 100% positive about this, but I don’t think alien abductees are moralizing other people who don’t believe that it really happened to them.

  • rvs

    Christians who panic at the thought of UFOs have not read Ezekiel 1. Atheists who dismiss UFO lore have not thought deeply enough about the universe. I really enjoyed this post; I write as a fairly traditional Christian. I also write as an X-Files fan and a Philip K. Dick fan. I recommend a book for those who are interested in Jesus, UFOs, astral projection, and The Avengers: Mutants and Mystics–a brilliant work by a guy at Rice U. –Surprisingly readable, given the academic edge it has. I don’t know the author (i.e., he did not pay me to say this), but I do know that the author is something of a Gnostic philosopher.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      rvs: What does the book conclude?

      • rvs

        My first impression of the book’s argument: Comic books, sci-fi and fantasy, etc., are to be read as counter-statements against a kind of Enlightenment rationalism that has bracketed out paranormal experiences on the grounds that Enlightenment rationalism has no explanation for the paranormal, except perhaps a unconvincing type of Freudian psychoanalysis. The enlightenment has hidden (or ignored) more than it has revealed. Sci-fi, fantasy, etc., is to be understood as scholarship on the paranormal by another means, given that the traditional humanities in America have in large part lost a sense of wonderment. Is the paranormal real? The author says “yes, certainly,” but exactly what that means remains open to debate.

  • HansB

    quote: “If the Gospel stories are believable, shouldn’t alien stories be far more believable?”

    Maybe the alien stories are believable. So what? The non-existence or existence of aliens doesn’t necessarily contradict Christianity. Who is to say that God didn’t create beings on other planets or even that aliens are demonic manifestations? I don’t know one way or the other. But it really doesn’t matter or have anything to do with the truth claims of Christianity.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Hans:

      What has to do with the truth claims of Christianity is evidence. And if the evidence for Christianity is far worse than something that you may dismiss as unlikely (aliens, in this example), then this says quite a bit about Christianity.

  • MNb

    “Alexander or Julius Caesar winning a battle isn’t hard to believe”
    The same principle applies to history as well. Alexander and his Macedonians walking to what’s today Uzbekistan and Pakistan and back, in the meanwhile winning every single battle, is so extraordinary we only accept it because there is quite some evidence.
    In fact even today I find it hard to accept that Alexander conquered the enormous and mighty empire of Persia in just three battles. Compare the endless Roman-Persian wars several centuries later. But yeah, evidence.

  • HansB

    quote: “What has to do with the truth claims of Christianity is evidence. And if the evidence for Christianity is far worse than something that you may dismiss as unlikely (aliens, in this example), then this says quite a bit about Christianity.”

    I didn’t dismiss the evidence for aliens as unlikely. I honestly don’t know one way or the other if aliens exist or not or if they do exist if they have visited the earth. I haven’t examined the stories of those who claim to have encounters with aliens. I wouldn’t dismiss people who claim to be eye witnesses outright, although of course they may or may not be truthful. Truth be told, I don’t really care if aliens exist or not, so I haven’t spent much time looking into. Still, again, I don’t dismiss claims about aliens automatically, so your point about Christianity doesn’t stand.

    Oh, but speaking of “far worse evidence,” naturalistic evolution (not evolution per se, but naturalistic evolution), makes far more extraordinary truth claims with far less evidence than either Christianity or the existence of aliens. The idea that life, without any divine intervention, randomly emerged from non-living matter and evolved into an intelligent life form with consciousness (human beings) on the only planet that we know of with the right conditions to support life is a pretty tall tale. Of course, atheistic secular humanism is even worse. If there is no God and we live in a cold, indifferent universe, then there is no such thing as “right” or “wrong.” Any sort of moral claims are sentimentalistic at best and superstitious at worst. If God doesn’t exist, nihilism is the only logical response, and secular humanism is even worse than religion. At the end of the day, “skeptics” and “freethinkers” embrace all sorts of far-fetched ideas and only apply their skepticism selectively. In other words, your entire post can be thrown back at you. Don’t believe in naturalistic/atheistic evolution and especially secular humanism until you believe in aliens.

    • Marcion

      I’m sorry, but your last paragraph has quite a few problems:

      1. Evolution is not abiogenesis. Evolution does not explain the origins of life, it explains its diversity. Furthermore, living matter and non-living matter are actually made of the same stuff, the only difference is the respective quantites of said stuff, and how that stuff interacts.

      2. Adding a god doesn’t help us arrive at the truth about the origins of life. It’s just throwing our hands up and saying “A wizard did it!”

      3. Earth being able to support life isn’t that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. There are billions of stars in the milky way alone. I’d be more surprised if none of them had any earth like planets than that one of them did.

      4. The hidden premise of this argument is that there’s something unique about intelligent life that warrants an explanation. Why would that be? Why is the existence of life uniquely in need of an explanation, instead os, say, the red spot on jupiter, or the mass of a hydrogen atom? The only reason I can think of is the fact that we are intelligent life, and we consider our existence so wonderful and astounding that it must have some special explanation. Basically, the whole thing reeks of egocentrism.

      5. God can’t give us morals any more than you or I can. If man says that X is immoral, it’s only a matter of opinion, but if MAGIC man says X is immoral, it’s really immoral because…?

      6. God can’t give us meaning, for the same reason as above. There’s no meaning but what we make.

    • Kodie

      What does it matter if it’s worse if it happens to be true? Any morality claims made by religious people about how god holds the absolute morality or causes humans to act morally is purely imaginary. Your (or someone like you maybe) morality is based on a book, and threats. It’s not based on sensible reactions to reality. Right and wrong matter when you wrong someone. We establish for ourselves some laws and customs, and if someone does something a few people don’t like, we should ask if they (or someone) were wronged or if their god was wronged. We should ask if they were wronged or if it’s their fault they are sick to their stomachs over something that doesn’t affect or harm anyone?

      Basically, you are saying you can’t handle a universe that chews you up and spits you out, you can’t handle life if it ends someday. Does nobody else like you or something? What divine intervention could have caused life that is difficult for you to believe arose naturally somehow? I mean, if something spontaneously or over a long period occurred to spawn life on earth, how is that too hard to believe than a magician? And if you seem to believe that life did evolve after that, it’s hard to tell what line you’re dividing between – evolution and abiogenesis? – you are using terms that are strange to me but sound like you’ve been reading a lot of propaganda against evolution. Evolution has a lot more proof than god or Jesus or any story in the bible. Evolution is observable. Abiogenesis is a different thing that you are complaining about. I don’t think it’s hard to imagine life arising from non-life. We’re just chemicals, and if conditions favor the chemicals to be more life-like than a rock, our planet just happens to have those conditions, or it did when life arose. I don’t really think of the concept of LIFE to be that comparatively amazing to non-life that it could not ever occur except by magician. It needs conditions, whether that be chemicals, time and temperature, lightning, etc., OR that be a magician. Which sounds likely to you? If a magician, then why? You need to know all these answers to questions that don’t have answers – only stories about the magician’s reasons, guesses. Or you don’t ask the sky why it rains. You don’t ask who made the ice cold, or who put that mountain in your way. It’s not all about you or me, and yet, we discover what causes rain, that water can become a solid, and how geological features were formed. If a mountain can cause itself, then why not life. If rain causes itself, why not life. Water will always become ice if it is cold enough. We can observe natural occurrences happening without the intervention of a deity. Why not life? Why do you find it comforting to know made-up answers to unanswerable questions?

      I find your protest of this happening as more improbable than aliens curious, supposing they would also be alive and from a distant area of the universe. Divine intervention for them also, then? You didn’t say anything positive to support your claim. You disbelieve in atheism on the basis that it’s unpleasant for you to think about, in favor of a magician deciding one day he’d like to make humans out of one-celled organisms. When you start with that premise, of course you’ll ask why and make up a bunch of morals and head games to play while you’re bored, lonely, or frightened. Being afraid to be a big nobody in the universe is one weird thing to be scared of. Keep in mind all the time you’re alive and living among others, a part of the universe cannot help but acknowledge you and might even love you. How is that the worst? How is that nihilism?

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Kodie:

        if someone does something a few people don’t like, we should ask if they (or someone) were wronged or if their god was wronged.

        I borrowed $100 from someone once. When it came time to pay it back, I was worried because I didn’t have it. So I prayed to God, and he forgave me! Unfortunately, my friend wasn’t as pleased with my resolution.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Hans: Marcion and Kodie have already responded, so I will overlap to some extent.

      I didn’t dismiss the evidence for aliens as unlikely. I honestly don’t know one way or the other if aliens exist or not or if they do exist if they have visited the earth.

      I don’t know either, but, given the evidence that we have, how do we bet?

      Still, again, I don’t dismiss claims about aliens automatically, so your point about Christianity doesn’t stand.

      I don’t dismiss them automatically either. I’m simply saying that the evidence for aliens is far better than the evidence for Christianity. If you think we have had Visitors, then this argument might mean little to you. If you think it’s unlikely (as I do) then the argument is relevant.

      naturalistic evolution (not evolution per se, but naturalistic evolution)

      Huh? I just know about “evolution.” What’s this new term?

      The idea that life, without any divine intervention, randomly emerged from non-living matter

      That part is called abiogenesis. No, science doesn’t have an explanation. So what? Surely your argument isn’t “Science can’t answer X; therefore God.”

      and evolved into an intelligent life form with consciousness (human beings)

      That you find it incredible counts for nothing in my mind, I’m afraid. As a layman, don’t you hesitate before rejecting the scientific consensus? You’ve got it figured out where all the people who actually understand the evidence don’t?

      on the only planet that we know of with the right conditions to support life is a pretty tall tale.

      We know 7 other planets well. There may be billions of planets each in billions of galaxies. What’s your point again?

      If there is no God and we live in a cold, indifferent universe

      And this is relevant how? We’re looking for the truth, pleasant or not, right?

      That the Old Testament god almost surely doesn’t exist sounds pretty terrific to me.

      then there is no such thing as “right” or “wrong.”

      In an absolute sense, no. In a regular sense, of course.

      Are you arguing that absolute/objective morality exists? I’ve seen zero evidence. Show me some.

      If God doesn’t exist, nihilism is the only logical response

      And since hundreds of millions of atheists don’t kill themselves, maybe that means that you folks who haven’t walked the walk might be missing something.

      “skeptics” and “freethinkers” embrace all sorts of far-fetched ideas and only apply their skepticism selectively.

      You could be right. Did you have something particular in mind?

      In other words, your entire post can be thrown back at you. Don’t believe in naturalistic/atheistic evolution and especially secular humanism until you believe in aliens.

      Evolution is the consensus of those who understand the evidence. Same for “No aliens.” I accept the scientific consensus.

      So where is my flaw?

      • Compuholic

        We know 7 other planets well.

        Just a few remarks: Improvements in science and technology have made it possible to detect planets in other solar systems as well. Today we have detected more than 800 exoplanets in over 600 solar systems. And we have even more candidates that are not yet confirmed. And of course we also found planets that might be suitable for life.

  • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

    You didn’t mention anything about the heart. About how we are all born knowing God in our hearts, in our consciences. Made in His image, we are born programmed to seek God’s will for our lives. How as little children we have a bright light quality about us, a beautiful innocence that is robbed from us as the corruption in our world begins chipping away at our inborn knowing of right from wrong. We are too easily brainwashed into abandoning our allegiance to our first love, Jesus. Those who have worked hard at ridding themselves of their conscience cannot stand to be near those who are still innocent, for it causes them to be pricked once again by their own emaciated conscience. Therefore, they feel the necessity to corrupt the innocent one as well. It all comes from moral rebellion, and seeking one’s own narcissistic way. It begins with mental WILLness which inevitably leads to convoluted thinking, because when one is no longer afforded Jesus’ guiding wisdom, one’s thinking will not make sense. It will not be right. The further one travels down the wide road to destruction, the harder it becomes to turn back to the narrow road that leads to eternal life. Much of it has to do with the determination to live in sexual license.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Ginny:

      Sure, this makes sense if we come at the issue with a Christian presupposition. I don’t. Christianity looks to me like any other religion–invented by man.

      And yes, the church is obsessed with sex, isn’t it?

      • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

        Nobody is born “Christian,” but everyone is born with a knowing of God. All other religions are man-made in their attempt to reach God. Christianity is about relationship, not religion. God, through Jesus, reached out to us in order to save us all from eternal damnation. He didn’t have to do it. It shows His great love for those who constantly reject Him. It is outrageous for the Christ whose rightful place is at the right hand of His Father to step out of timelessness into our world to live as one of us. It was not necessary to nail Him to His cross. His unfailing love, arms opened wide for us, would have held Him there. That I should such a life destroy yet live by Him I killed! He lived for us, (the rebellious ones), then He died for us, and then He rose for us. His death atoned for our sins, and His resurrection opens the door to everlasting life. How much easier it would have been for Him to not give us a choice. But to remove the choice would be to remove the love. The one who chose to love created one who could love in return… Now …. it’s our choice. Jesus is fishing for us, not to kill us but to give us life. God woos us with kindness. He changes our character with the passion of His love.

        Everyone in our culture is obsessed with sex, those in the world as well as those in the church. However, the genuine Body of Christ is set apart from such sinfulness. satan twists everything God makes beautiful into something unnatural and ugly, including sex.

        Everyone has learned of the deviant sexual practices of Catholic priests, but not everyone is aware of the deviant sexual activity occurring in public schools all across our nation on a regular basis, probably daily. “The scope of the public school sex problem appears to far exceed the clergy abuse scandal that has rocked the Roman Catholic Church. Comparing the incidence of sexual misconduct in our government-run schools with the Catholic Church scandal, Shakeshaft notes that a study by the U.S. conference of Catholic Bishops concluded 10,667 young people were sexually mistreated by priests between 1950 and 2002. In contrast, she extrapolates from a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000. The figures suggest “the physical sexual abuse of students in public schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,” said Shakeshaft, according to Education Week. Indeed more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a public school sometime between kindergarten and twelfth grade, says the report.” ~ HOW EVIL WORKS by David Kupelian

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Ginny:

          everyone is born with a knowing of God. All other religions are man-made in their attempt to reach God.

          This is just a long proselytization session. No arguments to respond to, I’m afraid. This is unconvincing in a dozen different ways.

          If you want to provide some actual evidence that your theology is correct, go ahead, but just your beliefs isn’t helpful.

          Comparing the incidence of sexual misconduct in our government-run schools with the Catholic Church scandal

          The crazy thing about the Catholic church abuse scandal is that this is an organization that claims to have the objective truth and yet they hide priests for the benefit of the church. Ironic, eh?

        • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

          Many, in supposedly acting on behalf of Christ and his Body, clearly display, by their behaviour, they are not being true to Jesus’ righteous teachings and His holy character. Just because one claims to know Jesus doesn’t mean that one truly does. Do they walk the talk? Obviously, many Catholic priests are hypocrites, not obeying the only one who is infallible. Instead, they follow after the prince of this dark world.

        • Kodie

          There is no prince of the dark world. None of them actually know Jesus. 100% of them are deluded to some extent and so are you.

          It doesn’t matter what walk you talk. You’re obviously someone who is only too happy to judge others, but I don’t know where you get the authority to do so. You are excusing Catholic priests because they are just men, they are following the prince of the dark world? and everything else is hunky-dory. So like that, your “conscience” is clear! You have determined what’s wrong with everybody else!

    • Kodie

      Your “evidence” is your “heart,” which is the wrong organ to do your thinking for you. You’re not going to convince anyone that whatever you just said is more probable than aliens by appealing to emotions, and all the conclusions you jump to based on how it feels for you do not add up to more evidence that it is anything more than you living your life according to wishful thinking.

      • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

        Obviously, you have chosen to live by your sin nature, Kodie, while I have chosen to live by my conscience.

        • Kodie

          My sin nature? Prove there is such a thing without babbling about how we’re all born knowing god.

          I.e., you make a ton of assertions with no basis in fact. Your heart pumps oxygenated blood through your body because we need oxygen to live. It does not know god or process your emotions for you. You are not possessed with the authority to judge me or compare me to yourself using words like “conscience”. We all use our “conscience”, it’s called empathy; we also, the rest of us use rationality to decide if something is actually harmful or just offends an invisible deity, who by all accounts is considered unknowable. So you believe in a fictitious character, I will continue making more sense on average than you do.

        • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

          Conscience tells us the difference between right and wrong. Many folks have done such an adequate job of eradicating theirs, on their way to seeking pleasure, that they no longer feel the prick that brings guilt, shame and pain when they are doing wrong. You are not afforded the guiding wisdom that brings rational thought, so someone like me cannot reason with someone like you.
          How do you account for evil?
          You certainly are adept at misconstruing my words, Kodie. Where did I excuse Catholic priests for the heinous acts they perpetrated upon young boys? I am sinful just like the rest of all this fallen world’s human inhabitants. There is only one perfect, and I follow Him, for He forgives me, since I have surrendered my allegiance to Him.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Ginny:

          Many folks have done such an adequate job of eradicating theirs, on their way to seeking pleasure, that they no longer feel the prick that brings guilt, shame and pain when they are doing wrong.

          Ouch! That’s totally what atheists do! That’s why prisons are full of mostly atheists.

          Oh–wait a minute. Prisons have fewer atheists per capita compared to the general population. Never mind. My bad.

          You are not afforded the guiding wisdom that brings rational thought, so someone like me cannot reason with someone like you.

          Wait–you are the one who is thinking rationally and Kodie and me aren’t?

          How do you account for evil?

          Stuff happens. That which we don’t like we might call bad luck or evil.

          If you mean bad stuff done by other people, what’s there to explain? We’re animals with good instincts and bad. Sometimes we do laudable things; sometimes terrible things.

          As for “sin,” that doesn’t exist in my mind. Show me a god who gets offended at the stuff that he deliberately created people to do, and I’ll show you a thin-skinned god.

        • Kodie

          Conscience tells us the difference between right and wrong. Many folks have done such an adequate job of eradicating theirs, on their way to seeking pleasure, that they no longer feel the prick that brings guilt, shame and pain when they are doing wrong. You are not afforded the guiding wisdom that brings rational thought, so someone like me cannot reason with someone like you.

          That’s rich. Is that how you squeak out of arguments you can’t follow up all the time?

          You certainly are adept at misconstruing my words, Kodie. Where did I excuse Catholic priests for the heinous acts they perpetrated upon young boys? I am sinful just like the rest of all this fallen world’s human inhabitants. There is only one perfect, and I follow Him, for He forgives me, since I have surrendered my allegiance to Him.

          Now you have misunderstood me. I did not say you excuse them, you just don’t care. You have decided from your heart that some people can hear Jesus and some people cannot, so there’s nothing more for you to do but sit in judgment but you don’t hold it against the church or god for not preventing abuse against innocents, and protecting the abusers within the church. That god of yours sure is perfect just because you say so. Everything you say is convenient for you to lead back to judging people and god is perfect. Nothing you have said so far makes sense in reality, and you refused to support your assertions because you think I’m too depraved to listen, so don’t patronize me that you’re the one being rational. Basically all you’re doing is pointing fingers at everyone else and deciding that you know exactly why they must disagree with you – sexual depravity! That seems to be your answer for everything. Where did you support your evidence for this? Nowhere. Do you know me? You think you know a lot about everyone who isn’t like you, on no basis whatsoever than this magical heart you have yet again failed to explain.

          Maybe your heart is too busy judging others to deliver oxygen to your brain? By the way, that feeling of being insulted with no basis or relevance to this discussion is called ad hominem. It means you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about but you get out of it by labeling people instead. It’s not a valid logical argument. I am using it here as an example to you what you should avoid doing, i.e. calling people who don’t believe in Jesus sexually depraved. It’s not true no matter how hard you wish, and it has nothing to do with the topic (none of your posts has been relevant to this topic).

  • duane

    Even if someone returned from the dead they won’t believe.

  • duane

    Even if someone returned from the dead they won’t believe.
    If you don’t want to believe you won’t. If you do you will.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      duane:

      I didn’t want to believe that a “duane” left a comment today, but I have no choice. The evidence is overwhelming so I, reluctantly, believe this.

      This is a weak excuse said by someone who doesn’t have any evidence. “Ah well–I won’t bother providing evidence since I know they won’t be impressed with whatever I give them.”

      Try me.

    • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

      Exactly, folks will believe whatever the hairy heck they want to believe, no matter what the truth is.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Ginny:

        That does seem to describe believers, who often don’t much care about evidence. But the atheists’ plea is: show us some evidence and give us a chance. Atheists simply follow the evidence.

        • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

          Atheists don’t want to hear the evidence that points to an Almighty Creator God. It’s not really about evidence though, is it Bob? It’s about folks not wanting to believe that there is such a God, because they want to live selfishly for themselves, and not for God and others. The foundation for such tomfoolery is living sexually as one wants, with no inhibitions whatsoever. They declare that Jesus is not real, and because that’s what they want, their words magically make it so. Birth control, homosexuality, abortion, and all manner of sexual deviancy inevitably follow such convoluted thinking.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Ginny:

          It’s not really about evidence though, is it Bob?

          It’s totally about evidence, at least for me. I doubt that it is for you.

          It’s about folks not wanting to believe that there is such a God, because they want to live selfishly for themselves, and not for God and others.

          So atheists really aren’t atheists. They know that God exists but are just pretending to justify their hedonism. Boy, are they going to be sorry when their loving Creator roasts them on a spit for a trillion years. What fun that’ll be for you to watch!

          The foundation for such tomfoolery is living sexually as one wants, with no inhibitions whatsoever.

          Except the golden rule. If it hurts someone, it’s bad. If no one is hurt (except perhaps that thin-skinned god), go for it. Pretty easy to understand, right?

        • Kodie

          Theists don’t have evidence. You don’t have evidence. I am nearly positive you tried to explain it before but nobody believed you. You construe this as a lack of wanting to see or hear evidence rather than that there is fault with your evidence. After all, you believe it. Then it must be because we don’t want to know, and that must be because we want to have all the sex and kill all the babies. That’s called a non sequitur. That means one has nothing to do with the other. Disbelief in Jesus is easy since believing in a magical lord who watches you all the time is kind of nuts. Belief or disbelief has nothing to do with sexual behavior, although some beliefs are obsessed to the max about sex. You are obsessed and now you think you see it everywhere, and you hate anything you can’t understand, and you don’t have evidence, you just have strong opinions.

          Anyway, sex is because we are animals. We evolved and we are disposed to be intelligent but we’re not made in the image of any creator – he is made in the image of us. Religious people have overcompensated for sexual irresponsibility in such a way that they have determined this rigid code is also magical. You want convoluted, you got it! You are not so pure, you are deluded and superstitious. Try a little less telling other people what you think they are about, and more time concentrating on trying to be less disgusted and judgmental. You seem to think the very worst of everyone if they are not like you. That’s not healthy or rational.

      • Kodie

        You believe that every child is born knowing god. You believe that you know things in your heart. You believe there is a prince of the dark world.

        Tell me how any of that is true and not simply a product of wishful thinking?

    • Kodie

      It’s not if you want to believe, or if you don’t want to believe. It’s that you want to believe, you like to believe, it makes you feel good to believe, but it’s still not true, then it’s disappointingly, I guess, not true. Or you could ignore what makes the most sense and believe that it is true. That doesn’t make it any truer, since, as you described, you want to believe, then you will. If you don’t want to believe, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen – just as much – but resurrection is outside the realm of possibility. Not “wanting to believe” in that isn’t really a factor. But you say even if we saw it we would deny it, you haven’t seen it, nobody has. Who gets to say what really happened – people who want to believe it happened, or people who are pretty sure that it is impossible and therefore essentially certain that no such thing occurred?

      What difference could it possibly make to my life today if it did happen? It’s a lame IOU. God has powers to make one man, himself, vaporize, and then what? This magically absolves me of all sin if I just go with it instead of examine this outrageous claim for truth? The strange things religious people believe in just because they want to!

  • Jimmy

    I disagree with number 7 because the gospels were not written as historical accounts. Seeming contradictions must be looked at with a knowledge of what the author was trying to convey to his audience. (on a side note, I am sure there are contradictory eye witness accounts for specific alien sightings (I dont have any statistics))

    • Kodie

      That is really just your rationalization for why the stories don’t match. It doesn’t bother you that they don’t match because you can just make up an excuse, being they were not intended to be accurate, just persuasive. The part that’s still real is a guy rose up from the dead and walked around and/or disappeared from his tomb with no plausible accounts for his body’s whereabouts, therefore, resurrection, therefore, salvation. You would still believe the most incredible part of that story because…?

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Jimmy:

      I tend to agree with you, but an influential fraction of American Christians think that the gospels were historical, and they have creative (but unconvincing) ways to argue away the contradictions.

  • Theodore Seeber

    Let me know when an abductee sticks to his story under scientists who, taking the same view as the Jews and Romans did of Christians, torture and murder them by the hundreds.

    • Bob Seidensticker

      Theodore:

      (1) Are you saying that abductees are all liars? (My view: some are and some aren’t.) Or are you saying that torture will get you to say anything?

      (2) Or are you saying that the apostles wouldn’t die for a lie? (I’ve shown how this isn’t an effective argument here.)

    • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

      Here is one story about one of the many martyrs for Christ through the ages:

      Polycarp was arrested by Roman officials after having served as Bishop of Smyrna for many decades. When the Roman proconsul ordered him to declare that “Caesar is Lord” and to curse Christ, the elderly Polycarp refused, saying, “Eighty-six years I have served him and he never did me any wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” Polycarp was sentenced to death by fire, but the flames miraculously stood like a wall around him and he was not burned. The executioner then stabbed him in the heart, which issued such an abundance of blood that the fire was quenched.

      • Bob Seidensticker

        Ginny:

        And there are also stories told about Roman and Greek gods. Do you believe them as well? Or just the ones you prefer to believe?

        • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

          Pardon me, Bob, Polycarp was a real human being. Roman and Greek gods are myths.

        • Bob Seidensticker

          Show me that this fanciful story about Polycarp is well supported by evidence and I’ll see your point. Until then, it fits nicely in the same bin as nutty supernatural stories of Roman and Greek gods.

  • Jimmy

    Kodie I agree with you that the miracles in the bible cannot be proven by historical or scientific methods. I was simply stating that his answer #7 is in invalid argument for why miracles cannot happen

  • http://www.facebook.com/quinton.yell Quinton BigCountry Yell

    I was brain washed into believing in your so called god as a child.. nothin but heartache as well. Now I’m 23 years oldhappy as can be cause I can finally get the truth, and just not the side people want you to believe. there are far more facts considering aliens than some bogus story(religion) created to keep the human race in line. The biggest thing about religion that sends a red flag is how are there many religions wit many different gods. That should ring a Wtf Bell. Come on use more than 1% of your brain people. And for all these so called spiritual sightings 2000 yrs ago couldn’t it just be aliens visiting and we as a civilization not understanding what was really going on and automatically thought this is a god…. Uh yes more facts pointing to mis interpreted info than a god creating us in his own image and the world only bein 2000 yrs old? Lol ya’ll make me laugh… Anywho gotta get up early. Peace

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/ BobSeidensticker

      Quinton:

      Thanks for sharing your story. Was there anything in particular that you read or heard that helped push you toward freethought? I’m wondering what arguments you found especially helpful (or not).

  • Tristan7grunt

    I always thought of there being an infinite plain of existence, where all universes connect to, and that living in this “Ocean of Creation” are extradimensional creatures, beyond any of the laws of physics universes abide by (Also, I would assume laws of physics aren’t always cross-dimensional.) and that these extradimensionals are essentially gods (We would think of them as such.), with the ability to bend the laws of physics in any universe they come across. These gods would come to some sort of universe, and either mess around with, help, create, or hurt that universe’s inhabitants.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Tristan: Is there any reason for anyone to believe your version of reality?

  • Lea

    Aliens are manifestations of demons, whether they come across as good or bad. They are a product of the sinful interbreeding and communion between humans and fallen angels just as it says in the Holy Bible. This is possibly the original sin that cast humanity into the misery of disease and death and all manner of evil for we are now born into this sinful condition. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is a reptilian who was able to speak and communicate with humans and it has left a trail throughout history as a serpent/dragon god. These entities could not exist without the energy and assistance that we so freely and ignorantly provide. Aliens are physical evidence of the fact that demons are real and contrary to the idea, mostly held by non-believers, that aliens negate Jesus Christ it does the exact opposite because those who wish to be free from demonic bondage can only do so when they discover the power of the Name of Jesus Christ. Christiantiy has been made into a religion but the phenomenon supersedes such mundane man and demon made trivaliaties because when, by the Holy Spirit, you come into a realisation of who Jesus Christ really is then you are no longer bound to rules and regulations or other people;s notions. Indeed, the truth of Jesus Christ will set you free.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Aliens are manifestations of demons, whether they come across as good or bad.

      So both aliens and demons exist? I’ve seen evidence of neither.

      They are a product of the sinful interbreeding and communion between humans and fallen angels just as it says in the Holy Bible.

      Aliens are the Nephilim? So they’re giants?

      Maybe the Nephilim are just stories made up by ignorant, pre-scientific people. What do you think?

      the power of the Name of Jesus Christ

      Like “abracadabra”? Or “open sesame”?

      the truth of Jesus Christ will set you free.

      Why this guy? Why not Buddha? Or Mohammed? There are lots of paths to the divine.

      Or maybe they’re all mythology.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X