God is an alien?

[nobspeople]

For those not familiar with the Ancient Astronaut theory, it is, basically, saying that ancient people experienced advanced tech from an advanced species and attributed that to gods (including the Christian God). There have been multiple shows and movies referencing this idea. Personally, I find it fascinating and, although I don't agree with everything AAT supporters claim, I do with much of the basics. It makes the most sense, to me. Especially when you see how much science and technology has replaced so much of what was once attributed to God and gods.
And this isn't something that's happened thousand of years ago, but relatively recently
https://www.indy100.com/news/remote-rel ... 382991?amp

While I doubt many, if any on here, believe this (maybe I'm wrong and I'm not the only one?) does anyone think it's at least possible?

Seems if one can believe in a supernatural being that created everything and was 'before time' (not to mention those that claim they understand such a being), surely you could consider this to be true?

Or does your 'faith' include closing off your minds to other possibilities?

[nobspeople]

Asking is it your belief that the bible's description/explanation is the only correct one? That any other ancient writing (Greek, Native American, Aztec, Aboriginal, etc) are wrong? Or are there threads of truths in other beliefs as well?

My belief is that the bible is the only 100% account of events but that most myths have elements of accurate history in them. The common threads are usually evidence of elements which are in my opinion based on historical events.

What about the bible tells you this about itself?

[JehovahsWitness]

Asking is it your belief that the bible's description/explanation is the only correct one? That any other ancient writing (Greek, Native American, Aztec, Aboriginal, etc) are wrong? Or are there threads of truths in other beliefs as well?

My belief is that the bible is the only 100% account of events but that most myths have elements of accurate history in them. The common threads are usually evidence of elements which are in my opinion based on historical events.

What about the bible tells you this about itself?

My confidence in the bibles account is based on the proven accuracy its historical record (often recorded within living memory of events), accuracy of its detail and the honesty and candor of its narrative.



JW

[nobspeople]

Asking is it your belief that the bible's description/explanation is the only correct one? That any other ancient writing (Greek, Native American, Aztec, Aboriginal, etc) are wrong? Or are there threads of truths in other beliefs as well?

My belief is that the bible is the only 100% account of events but that most myths have elements of accurate history in them. The common threads are usually evidence of elements which are in my opinion based on historical events.

What about the bible tells you this about itself?

My confidence in the bibles account is based on the proven accuracy its historical record (often recorded within living memory of events), accuracy of its detail and the honesty and candor of its narrative.



JW

Do you believe the bible is entirely historically accurate?
There's historical record (outside the bible) that shows proof of the resurrection or God talking to Moses from a burning bush, the healing of the blind, et al?
Or only parts of it is historically accurate?
And would you be as accepting of other ancient works if they also had historical references as the bible does?
Detail and candor is highly subjective of course, so that's why I want to focus on the historical record.

[JehovahsWitness]

Do you believe the bible is entirely historically accurate?

Yes.

And would you be as accepting of other ancient works if they also had historical references as the bible does?

Yes of course

There's historical record (outside the bible) that shows proof of the resurrection or God talking to Moses from a burning bush, the healing of the blind, et al?

No historical account (recent or ancient) especially of a biograpgical nature, can necessarily prove every conversation and detail. If the narration has enough circumstantial evidence and the narrator writes with consistency (see above) there is no valid reason to call into question the details he includes.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #15]

Yes of course

Any of these works you'd like to provide as examples? Maybe the Peyote Road, or animism or Hinduism, for example?

Yes [in believing the bible is entirely historically accurate]

Where is the historical references showing the talking bush that's on fire but never consumed? Or the resurrection?
Or do you believe that the bible proves itself as historically accurate and, as such, no other evidence is required?

No historical account (recent or ancient) especially of a biographical (spelling corrected) nature, can necessarily prove every conversation and detail.

Of course not: people don't believe what they see and believe what they don't see all the time. But that shouldn't eliminate the need to have something available as proof, should it? Or shouldn't it?

If the narration has enough circumstantial evidence and the narrator writes with consistency (see above) there is no valid reason to call into question the details he includes.

So a guy (assumedly, as women weren't taken too kindly in these days) wrote about something no one else wrote about (many times no one else saw), was then edited by other men (again, none of whom you know personally or even have met), was translated by other people (likely, none which you know or have met - though it's possible depending on how old you are), and that's enough for you?
If so it is what it is, but I question the ability to do this honestly and without bias.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes [in believing the bible is entirely historically accurate]

Where is the historical references showing the talking bush that's on fire but never consumed? Or the resurrection?

Did I say I need historical references showing the talking bush that's on fire but never consumed? Or the resurrection?

Or do you believe that the bible proves itself as historically accurate and, as such, no other evidence is required?

That is your dichotomy, I see no need for it. I believe there is enough internal and external evidence to trust the bible is completely accurate in all its detail.

So a guy ...wrote about something no one else wrote about (many times no one else saw)... and that's enough for you?

Removing your references editing and translating (which generally leave a paper trail) I think I was clear: If one cannot witness an event oneself, all that is left is to examine the evidence that *is* available. If there is no evidence at all save the testimony (which is rarely the case with scripture) then one has to decide if one does or does not trust the source.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #17]

Did I say I need historical references showing the talking bush that's on fire but never consumed? Or the resurrection?

I asked that question originally, if was simply an opinion all you had to do is say so. Why the angry and defensive!? You can believe in flying booger monsters for all I care, I simply asked a question and rather or not you have facts to support it. Which you don't. And that's fine - just own up to it and say so.

That is your dichotomy, I see no need for it.

So, to help you answer directly instead of all the typical side stepping, your answer is "I believe the bible is accurate and need nothing else to prove it to me past 'just 'cause the bible says so'.
Fair enough

[JehovahsWitness]

So, to help you answer ...your answer is "I believe the bible is accurate and need nothing else to prove it to me past 'just 'cause the bible says so'.

I dont recall asking for your help. That is not my answer, that is yours and I claim no ownership of it.


If there anything in my writing style you find displeasing you are free to scroll on past, or I do believe there is an "ignore" option that could save you time. Failing that , my answers above remain unchanged. Save for the spelling mistake, which I thank you for correcting.



JW

[nobspeople]

So, to help you answer ...your answer is "I believe the bible is accurate and need nothing else to prove it to me past 'just 'cause the bible says so'.

I dont recall asking for your help. That is not my answer, that is yours and I claim no ownership of it.


If there anything in my writing style you find displeasing you are free to scroll on past, or I do believe there is an "ignore" option that could save you time. Failing that , my answers above remain unchanged. Save for the spelling mistake, which I thank you for correcting.



JW

As you don't like to answer directly I'm satsfied with my take on your 'answer'.
Thank you for your 'time'

[William]

God is an alien?

For all we know, we exist within a simulation reality experience and could have created it ourselves in order to have said experience.

Gods and Devils are natural enough concepts for humans to develop to explain the unexplained, hence the existence of religious books such as the bible. The stories don't explain existence other than as mythological presumption.

Such stories do not in themselves provide anything in which we can be confident we are NOT existing in a simulated reality inside the programs of a machine. For all we know we may be in a spaceship which is AI and that spaceship is the YHWH of the bible...there is no way to tell, but ancient stories really only make such concepts as Simulation Theory more viable than gods walking around in gardens...