More Mail

I recently came into contact with a conservative Christian who had some rather...unorthodox views. See for yourself. As an aside, my Youtube account has a notification in it's description calling for any religious person to provide evidence for their religion, seeing as the vast majority seem content with quoting their scriptures or offering a simple command to repent or die. It was this, he claimed, that spurred him to contact me.

I accidentally deleted the first comment he made. Basically, he was claiming to prove that I was "lost," and gave me a link to a site called Return of the Nephilim, which was steeped in UFO conspiracy theories loosely tied to Christian eschatology.

Here was my reply to some of the things I found on the site:
The last site I saw which suggested that our problems were in part extraterrestrial was the Joy of Satan. Before that, it was the Scientologists. As a general rule, I never believe UFO cults and I take conspiracy theorists' words with a grain of salt. Let me guess: 9/11 was done by the Rothschilds in conjunction with the Freemasons, right?

But that aside...

Matthew 24:37 refers to the "days of Noe," which is correct on your part, because the Nephilim were the supposed reason for the Flood (despite no evidence in the fossil record of any significant veering off in an entirely new direction, ending in a sudden mass extinction). However, the passage had not only described in some detail the actual apocalypse, which made NO reference to the Nephilim (understandable because they had been killed in the Flood), but also gives a false prophecy, claiming that the generation Jesus speaks to will not be gone before the Second Coming (Matthew 24:34).

For a more serious objection to the entire idea of non-redemption through hybridization, it is not mentioned exactly why there would be no redemption. Impurity was a an ancient Hebrew concept which is not followed by Christians today, unless you still consider mixing of the races a sin as they did. Angelic beings and human beings supposedly both have free will, which is what most Christians (aside from Calvinists and some other groups) consider to be essential for salvation, the ability to choose to be saved. Thus, hybridization between men and angels is not valid grounds to reject the possibility of redemption.

Let's also remember, this is God. He can snap his fingers and find a far more humane way of dealing with these unruly angels than to drown all of them. And yes, I am questioning his decision, because there is a question to be asked. If he has every option available to him (being omnipotent), why choose that one over something equally effective yet more compassionate?

The idea of a messiah and of atonement was not even PRESENT at the time that the Book of Genesis was written, so why assign future values to past peoples? If we are to understand the Old Testament, we can only understand it in the context in which it was written, which means that we simply can not force ideologies into it which were not there.

There's a wealth of other information on why a global flood would be next to impossible, as well, so I won't elaborate on that.

So now you can understand why your ideas aren't taking on. If I may suggest a few articles to you...
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050125-000003.html
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200810/of-jock-straps-and-conspiracy-theories
http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/gw_rmd1.htm

His reply:
i appreciate and commend your willingness and so far openness to discuss.

as for the nephilim, i need not and do not want to put emphasis on them alone. it is just that the website is called "return of the nephilim." as to the identity of "extraterrestrial greys", the book Communion, by Whitely Streiber, a multiple abductee, shows unintended parrallels between close encounters of the third kind and demon violation spanning consecutive centuries.

the flood was not done due to angelic-human intermarriage, so far there is no evidence for this claim alone. genesis teaches that the flood was God's judgement on the wickedness of man and the evil rife in the world.

as for God using a flood instead of making everyone but noah and his family drop dead, a flood leaves evidence, which we see today, that God has already and is willing and capable of judging mankind.

i only recommended return of the nephilim as it carries a main theme, the "ufo" activity of demons. i did however say not to consider every word of it. there is a lot of crap in books and online.

and yeah, i love what you call "conspiracy theories." some are baloney, rather obviously, but there are sources, such as alex jones, who show evidence for each of their claims.

all the best.

may the force be with you..............

My Reply:
Assuming for a moment that abductions exist, there is nothing suggesting them to be "demon" related. In all likelihood, it's aliens which have been misconstrued as demons. However, I will stress that it might be something completely different,as every age has a different way of explaining phenomena.

For example, demon possessions are today understood through psychology, whereas they were understood in the past as being caused by malevolent spirits. Old theories are discarded and new ones replace them, just as the idea of demons died out a long time ago in most scholarly discourse in favor of better explanations of what we see in the world.

And no, there is no evidence of a global flood. I know of no reliable geologists or paleontologists who hold to that claim, because they tend to know what evidence is present in an ancient flood, evidence which is not present on a global scale. That, and we are still faced with the reason WHY that flood was necessary, a question that can be understood through our understanding of the culture in which the texts were written, but not through actual history or a logical analysis of the character of Yahweh.

His Reply:
you write: Assuming for a moment that abductions exist, there is nothing suggesting them to be "demon" related. In all likelihood, it's aliens which have been misconstrued as demons. However, I will stress that it might be something completely different,as every age has a different way of explaining phenomena.

every abduction account suggests that aliens are demons, as biblically and historically described.

you write: For example, demon possessions are today understood through psychology, whereas they were understood in the past as being caused by malevolent spirits. Old theories are discarded and new ones replace them, just as the idea of demons died out a long time ago in most scholarly discourse in favor of better explanations of what we see in the world.

escusemoi, have yo come across the possession of annaliese michel? psychology does not and cannot explain everything. the idea of demons did not die out a long time ago. real demons are alive and well among us this very day. go to an average bookstore, and go to the "mind, body and spirirt" section, and see how many books there are about "demon spirit contact". there is a market for it becuase people devotedly practice "necromancy" because it is real contact with spirits. however, those who practise it do not know who or what those "spirits" really are.

you write: And no, there is no evidence of a global flood. I know of no reliable geologists or paleontologists who hold to that claim, because they tend to know what evidence is present in an ancient flood, evidence which is not present on a global scale. That, and we are still faced with the reason WHY that flood was necessary, a question that can be understood through our understanding of the culture in which the texts were written, but not through actual history or a logical analysis of the character of Yahweh.

do you know of kent hovind?

My final reply:
"every abduction account suggests that aliens are demons, as biblically and historically described"

You'd need positive evidence claiming them to be something rather than aliens. Until then, all you're doing is speculating. Thus far, the dominant theory has been extraterrestrial, though even this is based upon pure speculation. You would also need to point out that the Old Testament was referring to alien abductions. I'd be more at ease with actual biblical scholars suggesting that, but thus far I have found none who make such claims.

"escusemoi, have yo come across the possession of annaliese michel?"
After a little research into Anneliese Michel, I've already found that she had suffered from a number of different psychiatric problems prior to the possession and was already intensely religious, which would make it all the more likely that she would interpret mental illness as being supernatural and demonic in cause.

"go to an average bookstore, and go to the "mind, body and spirirt" section, and see how many books there are about "demon spirit contact""

Don't assume something is true because Barnes & Noble has a section of books devoted to it. Half the books in those areas don't even fit the criteria most researchers would demand. Obviously, I can't be trusted to dissect each of them, but I can at least understand where they're coming from. A number are very uncritical and are only meant to pique the interest of people who like ghost stories, or they are meant for people such as Wiccans, Qabaalists, or Satanists, who have very unorthodox views anyway. I have yet to see a spirit, so I feel that I do have reason to be skeptical.

"do you know of kent hovind?"
The young earth creationist who got his degree from a diploma mill and was convicted of embezzling money? Yeah, and I don't happen to take his ideas as being reliable for obvious reasons. [CORRECTION: Hovind actually went to prison for tax offenses]

At this point, he stopped replying. I've seen plenty of people with very odd views, especially on Youtube, which tends to swarm with all sorts of strange people (I once found a page devoted to the teachings of the Black Israelites), but this guy is up there on my weird meter. It's enough to half convince me that I was talking to a troll. He did seem to know a little bit about certain things, though, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Not that it helped his argument much.