BS: UFO's and the Bible

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:59 PM

"I'm saying that a person can have faith in God, for example, or they can know God."

Or one can have faith in God, and that faith distorts their perception of an experience.

For example: I have seen several UFOs. Yes, yes I have. I've looked up in the sky and seen things I couldn't identified. My reaction was "Hey cool, it's a UFO! I wonder what it is? Aircraft? Aliens? Weather ballon?"

If I had faith or belief that aliens were visiting this planet on a regular basis, I might have interpretted that experience very differently, and assumed that I had indeed seen the craft those small gray aliens fly around in.

I don't think experience = knowledge. Experience may contribute to knowledge, but experience can be subjective. As "truth" it can only be interpreted on a personal level.

One might get a warm sensation while praying and call it an experience with God. Another might call it heartburn :)

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:57 PM

Excellently put, daylia. Those are some perceptive analyses of concepts such as "virgin birth", but not the ones that would normally occur to people who are busy counting (or stealing) hubcaps.

There were figures in Greek mythology who were presumably conceived in a mortal woman through the action of a god, and those were also symbolic tales of a similar sort to what Campbell alludes to. They were allegories.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:50 PM

OH NO! BillD was here, so he must've caught me at the 'circular reasoning' thing again. And now I'll lose all those points I'd earned toward winning a complimentary copy of his up-coming "Dissertations on Pure Balderdash!" Oh no, say it isn't so ...

Nicole that's quite the amazing article re "self-insemination"! Sheesh, it would fit nicely with the 'male lactation' phenomena. Now, if both became the evolutionary norm for this species, betcha the marriage/divorce/abortion rates would plummet. True 'gender equality' might become more than just a dream!

Hmmmm, wonder if it would be more like a nightmare ...

But on a more serious note appropriate to the spirit of this discussion, here's what Joseph Campbell has to say about the symbology of the Virgin Birth in "The Power of Myth":

"The virgin birth represents the birth of compassion in the heart, the birth of the spiritual man out of the animal man. This is a spiritual birth - the Virgin conceived of the word through the ear.
And the Buddha, with the same meaning, is said to have been born from his mother's side, from the level of the heart ... He wasn't born physically from his mother's side, but symbolically.

What is symbolically referred to is not Jesus' physical birth but his spiritual significance. That's what the virgin birth represents. Heroes and demi-gods are born that way as beings motivated by compassion and not mastery, sexuality or self-preservation.

This is the sense of the second birth, when you begin to live out of the heart center. The lower three centers..." [ie. mastery, sexuality and self-preservation] "...are not to be refuted but transcended, when they become subject to and servant to the heart."

Ahh, I luvya Joseph! And now you can get back to resting in peace...

Thanks Cluin for reminding me to look him up.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:46 PM

Put it another way: Faith simply alerts you to the existence of possibilities. Knowledge is what you attain by realizing those possibilities.

This is true with everything in life, not just with spiritual matters or mountain climbing.

Accordingly, he who has no faith has no possibilities. That's why faith is valuable, but it's not the final step by any means.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:38 PM

I see what you mean, Buck, but I was thinking of a different kind of knowledge than what allows an engineer to build a bridge. To do that he has to have knowledge of math, physics, tensile strength of various materials, and a whole lot of other facts like that at his command.

I was speaking of the kind of knowledge that comes from direct experience of something, and it could be something that has no obvious physical or quantitative permeters, so to speak.

I'm saying that a person can have faith in God, for example, or they can know God. This is similar to saying that they can have faith in the idea of romantic love (as do billions of people) or they can actually experience it directly! Whole different ball of wax. The direct experience imparts knowledge, which is more powerful than faith.

The direct experience is something you can't pass on vicariously to another person (which you can often do with faith), nor can you convince them of it in any way whatsoever if they are disinclined to consider it credible. In just that way, if someone were totally skeptical and disbelieving about the reality of romantic love...or patriotism...or any other powerful concept like that...there wouldn't be a damn thing you could do about it to change their mind, would there?

And their view would be based not on knowledge, but on faith. Their faith in what they believe is real. And for them, it would be real...as a matter of faith. With no faith in love or patriotism they would be patently unlikely to gain knowledge of either. You have to believe the mountain is there first, before you are going to try and climb it. Climbing it may still prove too difficult, even after you believe it's there, but believing is just the beginning. To know the top of the mountain you must actually climb there. Pictures of it, and stories about it from other people are not the real experience itself.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:37 PM

......geeziz............get the hip boots...........I bet Bill already has his on..........Wait a minute.....Maybe some of those chest high waders instead.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:31 PM

LOL, Buck, we gotta sit down and play word proofing games one of these days!

"if one's faith is verified by facts, then it ain't faith anymore, is it?"
Yes, except when used as a noun to refer to a religion.

Let me revise that statement:

... a "believer" will look at that kind of scientific possibility and call it supporting evidence that reinforces their belief; and skeptic will look at the SAME possibility and say it means it could have happened without God.

(To which a believer will say, "but everything happens by the will of God...")

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:22 PM

I should probably add that I wasn't suggesting that I am an enlightened being. I'm not. I'm a mere student who started out this life as a logical, scientifically grounded, rational atheist...that was the view of life I received from my family, and I went with it till I was in my early 20's, more or less.

If you ever meet an enlightened being and are ready to deal with it, you'll recognize the person as such. If you're not ready to deal with it, you won't, you'll just think "My, what a nice person that was!" and most likely go merrily on your way. And that's as it should be.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:16 PM

You'd be wrong. I don't think you can compare faith & knowlege. They do different things. If I'm an engineer designing a bridge, I want knowledge. If I'm seeking "spiritual growth" or "enlightenment" then faith works just fine. OTOH, if I'm looking to make sure my ticket to heaven is still good...

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:11 PM

I agree entirely with what you just said, Nicole.

Buck - When faith is verified by facts it becomes knowledge. Knowledge is, in my view, superior to faith. I imagine you would agree with that too.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:04 PM

But Nicole: if one's faith is verified by facts, then it ain't faith anymore, is it? Thus losing one of its primary values ("belief in what you know ain't so" as Mark Twain put it.) If there's value or power to having "faith" then that value & power are diluted the instant it's no longer "faith".

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:00 PM

Golly Little Hawk. How enlightened of you.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 04:00 PM

Well, LH, one can go through life assuming everything is a spiritual mystery, or one can have fun exploring possibilities. Nor do all spiritual events need to be based on fantasy, and symbols are invariably rooted in real events and occurances -- otherwise we wouldn't comprehend them as symbols.

One need not be assumed "blissfully ignorant" because one considers and mentally plays with alternate views. Just as one need not be assumed arrogant and self-righteous for the presumption they are enlightened and everyone who doesn't agree with their perception is not.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 03:42 PM

Boy, what a bunch of literal thinkers. Spaw's right, this thread is hilarious.

I note that none of you have even reacted to my suggestion that virgin birth was a pre-Christian religious idea (which the Christians borrowed later), nor to my further suggestion that it is a symbolic tale, not a literal one.

Of course, you're not spiritual adepts are you? Nor are you even attempting to be, in most cases.

The ordinary human being doesn't look any farther than grossly literal interpretations of religious materials, generally speaking. That's why religions feed highly symbolic and fanciful tales to the general congregation...as a parent tells fairy tales and "Santa Claus" stories to a little child...while few students people in the mystery schools or monasteries live quietly, studying the symbols in those tales, looking beneath the surface, and coming to a deeper understanding of what they actually mean.

You people are seriously in need of help from an enlightened being, unless of course you wish to simply remain blissfully ignorant. And my suspicion is, you do. You think your ignorance is wisdom and common sense.

So go ahead and talk yourselves blue in the face about the pros and cons and physical requirements of "virgin birth", and whether or not it is possible.

As if it mattered... LOL! By the time they crucified Jesus, I suspect he was getting fed up with the whole thing anyway...he was trying to teach higher spiritual truths to violent, sadistic apes.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 02:29 PM

True Buck -- but a "believer" will look at that kind of scientific possibility and call it proof of their belief; and skeptic will look at the SAME possibility and say it means there is no proof one way or the other.

13 year olds are, as pointed out, remarkably bad vessels for giving birth. Any ideas about the age of onset of puberty aren't very accurate, since we really don't know what was normal back then.

However, just because the plumbing is in doesn't mean the house is ready to be occupied. But we also get into theological ideas about the relative purity of children vs. adults; the idea that children are more pure and innocent (which we still ascribe to today) is a very old one. So someone on the cusp of childhood/adulthood, would be more theologically "pure," and therefore an appropriate *spiritual* vessel. An omnipotent God, of course, could get around the physical issues of a 13 year old mother.

Some of this reminds me of arguing long ago with other kids about the existence of Santa Claus.
"How could Santa deliver todays to everyone in one night?"
"Because he's Santa and he can stop time."
"How can he get down a chimney if he's so fat?"
"Because he's Santa, and Santa can do that."
"How does he know who to bring toys to?"
"Because he's Santa, and Santa has special powers!"
"Then how could ELVES make all those toys in just one year?"
"Because elves work for Santa, and he gives them special powers."

:D

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: TIA
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 02:06 PM

For bizarro images of the holy family, the Xmas carol "The Holy Well" cannot be beat. Mary doesn't seem so immaculate in that one.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 01:26 PM

But a "believer" doesn't NEED all the Xs and Os. A believer only needs "the word" and his or her faith. No explanation consonant with natural law is necessary - "God did it." To a non-believer, the explanations are similarly unnecessary, since the non-believer is quite likely to recognize a mythic theme that crosses many culture and mythic systems (virgin birth), and the christian implementation of it is simply evidence of the fact that christianity & its scriptural artifacts are indeed part of "the big picture."

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: NicoleC
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 01:11 PM

Okay, so I was trying to determine the biological basis for my earlier remembrances and did a little research. Without getting into XOs and XXYs too much (this is complicated stuff), random notes on self-impregnation:

Parthenogenesis; non-sexual reproduction i.e. development of the ovum into an individual without fertilization by a spermatozoon. Common in the insect and fish world plus a few other higher animals, but usually considered not possible among humans. Although eggs develop by themselves fairly often, they do not develope very far. However, several studies in the 19th century discovered pregnant women who carried to term who had some sort of vaginal blockage and could not have been (as far as they knew at the time) inseminated by men. Also, in 1955, Lancet reported a "virgin birth" where researchers could not rule out parthenogenesis.

In parthenogenic offspring, the female's 23 chromosomes double to make up for the missing male chromosomes. So parthenogenic offspring are a clone of the mother.

(Parthenogenisis among some frog species' was the basis of the dinosaurs' reproduction in Jurassic Park, except that the movie also combined it up with another phenomena, namely spontaneous sex change, which can happen among some species as well.)

Hermaphroditism; a sex anomaly in which gonads for both sexes are present; the external genitalia show traits of both sexes and chromosomes show male female mosaicism (xx/xy). Hermaphrodites can impregnante themselves (even without resorting to physical measures.

Quote, "In a study in the Netherlands in 1990 called Combined Hermaphroditism and Auto-fertilization in a Domestic Rabbit. In this study a true hermaphrodite rabbit served several females and sired more than 250 young of both sexes. In the next breeding season, the rabbit which was housed in isolation, became pregnant and delivered seven healthy young of both sexes. It was kept in isolation and when autopsied was again pregnant and demonstrated two functional ovaries and two infertile testes. A chromosome preparation revealed a diploid number of autosomes and two sex chromosomes of uncertain configuration.

A study was carried out on a human hermaphrodite at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Chicago, Lying-in Hospital, Illinois. The objective of this research was to determine the conceptional events resulting in a 46xx, 46xy true hermaphrodite and to report the first pregnancy in a 46xx, 46xy true hermaphrodite with an ovotestis.

The design of this study involved chromosome studies performed on patient's lymphocytes and fibroblasts, red cell antigens, human leucocytes antigens and the presence of y- chromosome deoxyribonucleic acid were analyzed. Findings were compared with parental and sibling blood group data.

The result of these studies demonstrated that our patient is a chimera; an organism in which there are at-least two kinds of tissue differing in their genetic constitution, thus with dual maternal and paternal contributions. In addition, despite the presence of an ovotestis, she conceived and delivered a child."

Chimera - A chimera is an animal compirsed of cell lines from a variety of sources. They can be found by fusing two or more early embryos or by adding extra cells. Reproducable in labs on mice. At least one such human subject is a alive and has been the subject of many scientific studies. His skin is male XY, but his blood is female YY. This particular subject has a face which has one appearance on one side, and a significantly different appearance on the other, but it otherwise is a perfectly normal appearing boy. It is not 100% how he came into being. The possibility exists that he had a female fraternal twin in the womb which died, and some of that twin's genetic material passed into his body. OR -- they merged in the womb. Another theory is that his mother parthogenically reproduced, then part of the egg was fertilizied by the father before the embryo died.

Finally, many children are born without being 100% of one sex or the other and are also not true xx/xy hermaphrodites -- sometimes with drastic appearance anomolies, but often very minor ones that may go unnoticed. In the case of children who are of fuzzier distinction, a sex is generally chosen and the child raised that way. Sometimes operations are performed to "correct" physical anomalies, but actual chromosonal makeup is rarely checked, and the determination is made by appearance alone. An XY child can appear totally female, or vice versa, but XY females cannot generally conceive normally.

So -- if Mary were a true hermaphrodite or a chimera (or even just a bit mixedup), the process of parthenogensis could have created a male child and not just a clone. As I said, pretty rare.

To a believer, the upshot of all this can mean that Jesus' birth was a divine miracle, yet of natural origin. To a skeptic, this can mean that God wasn't required, necessarily.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 12:11 PM

Yeah Bill...and it cracks Karen up!!! She really hadn't thought too literally about the words til a few years ago, but then she had this mental image of a pregnant Mary with a voice coming out of her womb telling the trees to bend....and she can't help but laugh at the "image." This kind of literal thought process she blames on me and now says I have ruined another perfectly good song for her.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 12:00 PM

'spaw...you know, there's a song with the basic dialogue you give... "The Cherry Tree Carol"

"When Joseph was and old man, and old man was he,
He courted Virgin Mary, the maid of Galilee....etc

Joseph gets very angry!...but the unborn baby Jesus causes the trees to bend so that Mary can pick cherries easily.....now there's a metaphysical debate for you!

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:38 AM

Injecting sceptical reasoning into a thread like this is like herding cats while pushing a chain uphill.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:37 AM

Hey Bill...Thanks for reminding me about the "immaculate conception" part.......Didn't you always figure that Joseph was just really pissed over the whole thing?

JOSEPH: You're what?
MARY: I am with child Joseph.
JOSEPH: How the hell is that possible? We've been married ten years and I ain't even seen you nekkid, let alone anything else!
MARY: But Joseph, I am still virginal. The baby was given to me by God.
JOSEPH: God my ass....Some guy got you tanked up on wine and told you he was God!!! So now what?
MARY: Joseph, it will be your great honor and duty to rear the son of God.
JOSEPH: Lemmee get this right....I've still got the world's worst case of Blue Balls, but you're knocked up and the SOB who did it claims to be God....and then splits, sticking me with bills??? Dammit Mary, construction is way down and we are barely making it the way it is. I tell you Mary, this kid better know how to stretch food and turn water into wine!
MARY: He will Joseph. He is the son of God.
JOSEPH: Geeziz Keericed!!! That's ridiculous!!
MARY: No Joseph, that will be name.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:14 AM

agreeing with catspaw that this thread gets stranger & stranger......I love a good debate, but you will note that I gave up WAY back trying to inject reason into it.

I wonder sometimes if some people subconciously avoid simple answers and sceptical reasoning because it is just too dull & boring.
....immaculate conception and aliens and Pantheism are just much more fun to speculate about..

ah, well...carry on...I'll jes' set here and shake my weary ol' head.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:03 AM

I'm hoping there are other civilizations out ther, as much as anyone else. But as my very smart husband pointed out to me recently, if there are highly-advanced folks out there, wouldn't they have discovered out beautiful and lush-with-resources planet long ago, before we even had humnan beings walking around, and wouldn't they have claimed this place as a cushy vacation resort planet?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 10:59 AM

Buck that's just a WHALE of a good thought! He he he

:-)    daylia

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 10:37 AM

what makes us think "we're the best?" Maybe those whale "songs" are really just laughin' and laughin' and laughin'.......

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 10:37 AM

Rustic - your train of thought is a lot clearer to me now - thanks. And it's quite intriguing too.

Yes, given the existence of an omnipresent God, everything in the universe must be an expression/manifestation of that creative divine power, including ET's. But here's a thought re "Maybe so advanced they manipulated people. Used them like people claim they are still using them today."

In my understanding, the most highly evolved 'spiritual' beings (ie. angels, archangels) are NEVER invasive or manipulative. They are highly respectful, never interfering with the life of another being or breaching their 'sacred space' without permission, without specific invitation. That is the essence of 'free will' - and it is one of the most important spiritual 'laws' of Creation.

If this is true, then any 'alien' who manipulated or used a human being without permission is certainly no highly evolved spiritual being. Although obviously more technologically and psychically developed than humans (hence the manipulative abilities), such a being would be no more spiritually advanced than the average human being. So wise discrimination - and prudence - is always necessary when dealing with these or any other 'subtle', unusual energy form or being.

To date, those are some of the conclusions my own studies and experiences have led me to. Just some thoughts for pondering ...

You go, girl! (I'm betting you're a 'girl' - if not, so sorry!)

:-) daylia

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 09:35 AM

So Buck....We're the best they could come up with???? Ya' know, if I arrived here and found this planet damn near covered in water, I'd have left some water creature.....So maybe they left a few dolphins............Nah, not my idea of a good theory at all.........

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 09:22 AM

Even more interesting is the school of thought that holds that they didn't find us at all, but left some wee ETs behind to become us.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 08:46 AM

Yeah, I see that Penny........Seems as though the god dude would have been a lot better off to use some experienced birthing vessel. Then instead of Jesus, we might have had the 9th child as the "Saviour," a kid named Morty.

Gawddamn but this thread cracks me up!!! Let's think about the Alien perspective a bit........Obviously they would have to be very advanced and perhaps conquered the speed of light. So they show up here and find.........us. Eons and eons of travel and we're the best they can find. Wouldn't that be a bitch? So instead of setting up shop with their own technology and taking over the planet or just blowing the place to hell and be gone, what do they do? They start dickin' around arranging rocks. Yeah, right.........Gimmee peace.............

But is there life out there? Odds are in favor of it certainly. Also consider this.......Life here started with a combination of 4 amino acids. It is possible for life to have started somewhere else with a different 4.... or 6 or 8......As it developed there would be no reason to believe it would follow the same path as life as we know it here. So it's quite possible that life forms exist that, should we encounter them, we will not recognize as life....nor they us.

Anyway, y'all are crackin' me up!!!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere)
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 07:48 AM

If it were possible for a woman to impregnate herself, she would have to produce sperm as well as an egg. She would not be a woman, she would be a hermaphrodite. If a woman did somehow enable the development of an egg without sperm, it would not have a Y chromosome. The child would be a female, not a male. If the child did have a Y chromosome, the mother would not be a woman. She might look like a woman, since XY foetuses can develop into the default female if the Y does not become active at the right time, but she would not be a woman. That being so, she would probably not have a womb, or the ability to make eggs. There would be no child. If Jesus did not have a father, then he was the result of some miracle.

If girls were married at 13 in first century Palestine, it would be unlikely for them to fall pregnant at once. The onset of menarche has been falling recently - and the average age would have been higher than 13 where food was less abundant, and less rich in oestrogen mimicking compounds than it is is modern western societies. There is a greater chance of miscarriage and of maternal death with young mothers, whose pelvis is undeveloped. The mother is less capable of caring for the child. Would God be involved in using an unfit and risky vessel, however pure, to the possible detriment of his offspring or the baby's mother? (Would an alien, who had presumably been watching the way humans develop?) I think not.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Cluin
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 02:26 AM

Stop, children! What's that sound?

Oh... it's just Joseph Campbell spinning around in his grave.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 12:23 AM

Sighting reports? Oh well, it's a matter of opinion whether they are interesting or not. But sightings? They are very interesting! Trust me.

As for medieval theologians...yes, I am aware of their opinion about Mary, I just don't give it much credence, that's all. The concept of a virgin birth was one that had already been popularized much earlier in one or two pre-Christian religions, but the Christians are under the impression that they thought of it first. They didn't. Just like they didn't think of the Christmas (midwinter) celebration first, or the "Son of God" concept first. These things have been thought of many times before Jesus was ever born.

And agreed, our logical explanations say MUCH about our present mindset.

The virgin birth is symbolic of something. I leave it to you to figure out what.

In the same sense, Adam and Eve are symbolic of something, as are most religious archetypes.

Taking either case literally may entirely miss the point.

Do you really believe, for instance that Caine & Abel and Adam & Eve were the only four physical people on Earth when Caine slew Abel, and that Caine then went "east of Eden" to find himself a wife? Who was she, a wandering ape?

Anyone who takes religious tales literally has got to come up with logic that rivals Houdini's ability to get out of handcuffs and locked containers.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: GUEST,Magpie
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 12:05 AM

Oh dear...

Clinton brought this thread to my attention, and although i never intended to have a word to say about it .. but ...

1) Medieval theologians were very clear about how Mary was impregnated. It was a divine miracle. Moreover, she was not surprised by the event, having been forewarned by an angelic visitor. It is of course tempting to find "explanations" for all of the divine events that happen in the Bible... but i think that says more about our present mindset than it does about the content of the scriptures.

2) As was noted in a previous post, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, when one is suggesting a radical hypothesis such as ancient alien visitation, i think it is clear that the burden of proof lies with those in favor of the theory, especially since more mundane explanations exist. To date, i am unaware of a single shred of credible evidence of alien visitation to ancient cultures that has not been adequately dealt with by scholars in the field (e.g., not Erich von Daniken)

3) i am with Clinton on the Travis Walton thing... there are a few (very few!) UFO sighting reports which are... interesting. The Exeter Incident is another. Isolated reports, however, do not equal a massive government conspiracy/coverup, for which (again) there is not a shred of credible evidence - even according to most ufologists.

and off i go, muttering into the darkness...

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:36 PM

yeah, bigdarve- there's one born every minute. you can make anything up you want from even the yellow pages...like the notion that life is all about accumulating money and material possessions and being "he who dies with the most toys". The people who do that most "successfully" are no doubt laughing their asses off all the way to MalWart (deliberate mispelling). I do not envy them. I pity them.

My impression is that Von Daniken believed his theory. I think he went off the deep end. That doesn't have much bearing one way or another on the UFO question for me. If I want to study Christian spirituality I don't go to Billy Graham or Jerry Falwell for it.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:16 PM

Well, Nicole, it's all a matter of interpretation of words, I guess...

What's boring about totally passionate love? I have never experienced sex as anything but immaculate in feeling, despite having had one girlfriend who could not accept the notion that anyone could possibly love her...but was willing to settle for casual lust whenever she could arrange it on her own terms. She longed to be thought of as a "slut". It turned her on. That was, I can tell you, a twisted experience and not one I would wish to repeat. I was with her for nearly 3 years, and it was like living in hell. She was one of the most untrustworthy individuals I have ever known in this life. She could also be charming when she decided to be. She had come from a family background where there simply was no love (but lots of fear, rape, drunkeness, violence, and what-have-you), and the standard way of coping for her was to lie, manipulate, and use your obvious assets (in her case, her body, so she thought) to get what you wanted. Exactly what she did want, God only knows. She never got it...not from me...not from several other guys who all have one thing in common after the fact...they avoid her any way they possibly can.

Why do you think I like Elves so much? They express the highest love accompanied by the greatest sense of self-worth. All things, in their highest form, are immaculate, and I'm not talking about lemony pledge/cleanliness when I say that. Nor am I eliminating sweat and passion. How can anything so beautiful not be immaculate, if there is no fear involved?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: bigdarve
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:06 PM

yeah,rustic- there's one born every minute. you can make anything up you want from even the yellow pages.the trick is making money out of the suckers who buy the books.
eric van wotsisname must be laughing his cock off all the way to the bank and fair play to him,he's richer than i'll ever be but i'm not so big a fibber.
watch out for all that forbidden shellfish mullarkey!

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 10:05 PM

Keith- I did go into your site and stayed only a short while. I plan to check into it more. You gave so many links I just breezed through them. Thanks! Lots of interesting reading.

Daylia, When I started this thread the first thing I said was God=Aliens. Meaning, I think that the God or Gods in the Bible were the aliens. They came in all their glory in clouds of fire. They were powerful and had an advanced technology so the people called them Gods. They could part the sea with whatever instruments of energy they may have had, or whatever mind power they have. Maybe just so advanced that they know how to manipulate energy, just like Jesus did (and I have already used this here) when he walked on water.Maybe so advanced they manipulated people. Used them like people claim they are still using them today.
Do you see where I'm going with this Daylia?
The eternal creator that you are talking about I call- "All that is", and that I believe is in all of us. Equally so, so did Jesus when he tried to teach us that we could be like him. But too many people were looking for a savior instead of saving themselves.
In my most humble opinion.
Peace. Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 09:36 PM

well it probably beats 'emasculate' sex he he he! Where ARE those angels when you need 'em?!?

:-)   daylia

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 08:45 PM

Can you imagine waking up one morning and finding out you were pregnant when you hadn't had sex in ages? It'd be pretty darn incomprehensible to me, too! It'd be nice if someone showed up to explain it to me... a little blaze of light and unearthly power would be welcome, too :)

I'm sorry, LH, but "immaculate" sex sounds soooo boring.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 08:31 PM

OK I'm feelin a little moronic now - of course that's so Nicole. A physical experience of some kind would have been necessary for Mary's own understanding and emotional health. And I'm sure that whatever form that intermediary took - angelic being/energy, ET's or whatever - it would have been just as Little Hawk said - 'an "immaculate" process ... accompanied by an immaculate (a genuinely loving) consciousness".

Surely the Lord of Love was conceived in love!

Y'know, it felt uplifting to write that!

(((((((((((((((( :-) ))))))))))))))))                                    

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 07:51 PM

Hmmmm...number one, I will make this comment. All conception is immaculate. Not that I am suggesting it doesn't involve sex, I am suggesting that sex itself is an "immaculate" process...or can be...when accompanied by an immaculate (a genuinely loving) consciousness.

I regard the medieval view of women and the Old Testament view of women as deranged, corrupt, and insane....as I would regard any viewpoint that defines women (or men) as essentially sinful, evil or impure. Ditto for any viewpoint that defines sexual activity in such negative terms.

As for Jesus being the Son of God, that doesn't worry me much, because I regard every male as God's own Son-in-the-making and every female as God's own Daughter-in-the-making, God embodying both the male and female principle in full balance, and I believe if you study Jesus' teachings closely you might perhaps find that he saw it that way too.

Some sons and daughters are further along than others in their awareness, that's all. He was very far along, which is why he affected people so profoundly at the time. Buddha was another who was very far along, and there have been many such individuals, some famous and some quite obscure.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 07:44 PM

Yes, but there's message and then the messenger. Would Mary and/or medieval theologians conceived (ha ha) of the idea that Mary could have been impregnated without some sort of inseminator? It's not that far-fetched in a world of ultrasound and MRI's and x-rays, but then?

If Mary were impregnanted by said omnipotent God, then an intermediary may have been necessary to make it real and comprehensible for HER, and not necessarily God's limitation. Even is Mary is physically untouched, the angel acts as an intermediary.

Finally -- and you'll have to forgive me because I don't remember the scientific biological specifics -- it IS theoretically possible that a woman can impregnate herself, although it would be very, very rare. Such an event, with or without divine intervention, would be a miracle and would NOT require a male parent. As I said, I don't recall all the particulars, but I remember it requiring an impressive number of unlikely events to converge.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 07:25 PM

Geez. And look at all the trouble Jerry Lee Lewis got into for marrying a 13-year old.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 07:18 PM

Thanks Nicole - that's the usual hypothesis given concerning Mary's age. I just wondered if some new records or evidence had been found that I hadn't heard about.

Rustic, I've been thinking about this since I started reading this thread a couple days ago, and hesitated to post it because I do not want to look like I'm trying to discredit or debunk any of your theories above. And I'm not! But now I'll risk asking you -

Assuming for a moment that an omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal Creator God DOES exist (cuz I don't want to rehash that tired old debate), and that He wished to impregnate a human female, why would He require an ET (or anyone else) to do it for Him? Surely such a God would be perfectly capable of generating new life within a woman's body without any 'help'!

Just a thought ...

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 06:45 PM

That's the approximate age that is generally believed to be true; I've seen it it numerous scholarly sources, although I'm not sure if there is a "biblical" source per se.

12ish was the normal age of betrothal for jewish girls at the time. Betrothals usually lasted 1 year. Unlike modern engagements, betrothals were very serious business -- part of the marriage process, not just a promise to wed.

If Mary was betrothed but not yet wed, that puts her age at or about 13 years old (i.e. 12-14), unless she was profoundly different from Jewish marriage customs at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 06:41 PM

Hi Rustic,
The Insider is my lad.
Best wishes,
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 06:23 PM

Nicole I'm curious about where you found such specific information about Mary ie) her age when pregnant with Jesus?

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: NicoleC
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 06:05 PM

Interesting quotes, but they must be taken into historical perspective, including the atitudes of the authors.

At the time when most of those religious texts were written, women were considered evil, unclean beings. Virginity is a higher state of purity, but it is still an impure condition by virtue of one's femaleness. Mary HAS to be elevated above other women to hold with their belief that Jesus is holy.

Secondly, the general attitude throughout most of Europe was that a child came from a man's seed, while a woman was merely the vessel in which it was planted. (Very pagan in origin, really -- "mother earth" and all that.) Mary's position in theology is not as a provider of genetic material, but as a vessel which grew and gave birth to God's seed. Hence, Mary's pureness is only relevant in light of her as a "clean" vessel to hold the son of God, not as being clean enough to be part of the creation process.

So if we take into account that women are inherently evil but Mary is somehow not, the idea that Mary must somehow be of cleaner birth than other women is tempting to a theologian trying to reconcile the two -- creating a mystical lineage is one way to do that, although it really only moves the problem, not solves it -- i.e. God chose to create a pure vessel instead of Mary being that naturally or God choosing to purify Mary of her "natural" state of impurity in preparation for implantation.

In reality, though, Mary was a 13 year old Jewish girl that could be killed for the crime of being raped. I personally think she either fabricated an excuse OR the trauma of the situation was easier to remember as being a holy event; she may have genuinely believed it happened that way.

Faith in Jesus as the son of God is exactly that -- an article of FAITH for which there isn't a shred of proof. It doesn't stop millions from believing it. The same can be said for any alien origins of Jesus -- belief it may be, but proof? None. (Not unless the hypothetical aliens decide to let us in on the secret, and even then they might be lying to establish credibility...)

Subject: RE: BS: UFO's and the Bible
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 05 Feb 03 - 03:39 PM

This stuff is not my entire life, but I sure have been inundated with it the last few days!

Sinsull-Thank you!! I get it more clearly now. It was Mary's mother that was implanted with the seed! Mary was the alien seed making her free from original sin. Then when she was implanted with another 'pure' seed, well then you have Jesus.
Or looking at it from another perspective- Mary was the 'pure-race' seed and just because of the supposed purity in her, it just made her a virgin of 'no sin'.
Sinsull you have made a believer out of me! see what I said earlier I am not to old to learn! And now I understand the connection with Mary and the church better. I will add this for you to read, and see if you get out of it what I did....


it is evident and notorious notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt from every defect (Typicon S. Sabae);
she was formed without any stain (St. Proclus, "Laudatio in S. Dei Gen. ort.", I, 3);
she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theodorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140);
when the Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but remained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, "Hom. i in B. V. Nativ.", ii).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sinlessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceeding all perfection of purity ...., alone made in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body . . . . my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . ... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate" ("Precationes ad Deiparam" in Opp. Graec. Lat., III, 524-37).
To St. Ephraem she was as innocent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena").
Jacob of Sarug says that "the very fact that God has elected her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary". It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation.
St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extends it also to her parents. He says of them that, during the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupiscence. Consequently according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Petrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and Anne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trombelli, "Mari SS. Vita", Sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Emmerich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary.

Pretty heavy shit there. The seed of God, Made in the home of all the graces of the most holy spirit. Ok then. Working out a new philosophy!

Peace. Rustic