UFOs, Angels and Gods - A concept

[Matt the Bat]

I also noticed how no sincere born again christians have ever been abducted, though I don't recall there being any testimonies of where they were actively exorcised in the name of Christ during an alleged abduction. I do want to note that one abductee who was interviewed and recalled his experience through hypnosis (I believe this was the guy who was abducted with a friend on a river or something like that) now believes the aliens were sent after him on behalf of Satan, though I'm not sure exactly what his precise theological beliefs are in general.

[xcav8tor]

Hi seanD,

Um... did you check out the link I provided? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...e-the-nephilim)

You said, "We would have to assume God separated humans and forbade them to intermingle for some reason." I would have thought the ongoing repetition of the whole "created after its kind" rule in Genesis sort of got across the message that any kind of "intermingling" between kinds is simply not possible (its been proven by genetic experiments that there are limits to biological change - a sterility barrier for example). One cannot imagine two more distinct "kinds" than a mortal human being and an immortal being of spirit, even if it does have the ability to materialize.

You seem to take it for granted that angels taking solid form would automatically have a human genetic make-up and be able to produce viable offspring even though the Bible is silent about this. Why? As far as we know, all angels are distinct creations made individually by God and not designed for procreation. And although angels are described as "male" in the Bible, how can you be sure they are even anatomically equipped for reproduction? After all, there is no indication in the Bible that angels marry, have families (including baby angels), or even that female angels exist. If there is no female-angel counterpart, why would "male" angels need reproductive organs? And with no female angels, what would be the source of their original sexual desire? Surely they would need a natural desire in the first place before it could be perverted to desire human women. In addition, while angels - who were created by God as spirits - have the ability to manifest in physical form, what basis is there to believe they could create permanent bodies for themselves, surrender their immortality and spend life as mortals? It seems to me to be an awful lot to take for granted on the basis of just a few puzzling verses of scripture.

Btw, do you happen to believe God created by evolution? Just wondering, as it might explain why you seem to so casually accept the possibility of this bizarre kind of cross-breeding.

I don't really care if we disagree on the "sons of God" issue. It is not an important subject - more like a topic for discussion that will probably never be resolved because the Bible has not given us enough information. Actually, I've spent more time than I intended to on this subject already. I was mainly interested in the UFO aspect of the thread.

Cheers,
xcav8tor

PS to Matt M. - There was no "exorcism" as such involved in the instances I referred to. The people just called out to God in prayer in Jesus' name and the abduction incident ended immediately. I'm sure you'll find this aspect of the book quite interesting if you read it.

[seanD]

Xcav8tor, I'm a creationist, and I pretty clearly stated that the angelic makeup is the area that can be used the least to support the case one way or the other. You can neither disprove the case based on their makeup anymore than I can prove it, because we just don't know. I don't know why, but it seems the Christians I come into contact with are afraid of this issue for some reason, and I'm not sure why, though I"m not saying this is the case with you. Nonetheless, I think the evidence that the b'nai elohim of Genesis 6 were supernatural is pretty indisputable, otherwise I would have abandoned that belief.

[theblueprint_Ni]

Xcav8tor, I'm a creationist, and I pretty clearly stated that the angelic makeup is the area that can be used the least to support the case one way or the other. You can neither disprove the case based on their makeup anymore than I can prove it, because we just don't know. I don't know why, but it seems the Christians I come into contact with are afraid of this issue for some reason, and I'm not sure why, though I"m not saying this is the case with you. Nonetheless, I think the evidence that the b'nai elohim of Genesis 6 were supernatural is pretty indisputable, otherwise I would have abandoned that belief.

I'll try not to derail this thread by going too off on this little rabbit trail, but I have my theories about why Christians are reluctant to take the route that we've expressed here. The angelic visitation position runs contrary to natural phenomenon. It can't be explained by any modern theories, much like the flood, the crossing of the Red Sea, OEC, demon possession, as subjects to name a few, are often subjected to the paradigm of our day, i.e., natural science and psychology. Demon possession is also one of those issues that folks in our developed societies refuse to accept for all intents and purposes. It either boils down to psychosis or dissociative identity disorder. Any Christian who even hints at it being a possibility are looked at like ignoramuses. Thus, the sons of Seth theory is a much better adaptation to our natural tendencies to gravitate toward more "reasonable" explanations, which essentially means that it better fits the schemes and worldviews of our day and time.

Matt M., I am not suggesting that this is you. I apply this in a much broader sense in which I think Christians are often guilty of being unable to recognize the powerful influences of our culture and time that affect our view of Scripture.

[seanD]

You're right theblueprint_Ni. The problem for us Christians, however, is that that ship has already sailed from the get-go. We already have a kooky belief that runs totally against natrual science and modern reality. The supernatural. So all bets are already off the table in that regard. But I've found that the subject of the b'nai elohim is also hard for Christians to accept who even reject natural science theories. So it seems more of a theological issue.

[shunyadragon]

There has been quite a bit of research done on this which is covered by the alternative media crowd.
However, I think that the ancient astronaut theory is one of the better Attempts to figure out how our species advanced so quickly, compared to the others. It has a lot more support in the archeological evidence and it does make a lot more sense interpreting some of the mythological stories.

I do not consider the ancient astronaut theory to be well founded in evidence. There is too much speculation involved, and there are more mundane explanations.