If life could be on Mars, then life is easily prevalent throughout the universe. This shows that the earth and humanity is not unique, and not special to any god. Life can start anywhere. Had the conditions on Mars remained stable, there would be more evolved life forms there today.

They trotted out this bullshit in 1996 and it didn't fly then and it won't fly today.

Their is life on Mars though because we sent it there on our space probes.

They trotted out this bullshit in 1996 and it didn't fly then and it won't fly today.

#2 | Posted by buzkiller at 2009-11-28 02:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Like most dUmmies, you didn't read the article. Same meteor--new examination--new results.

While admittedly not a biblical scholar, I don't remember anywhere that life was only created on this one planet.

Maybe the microbes were a way of prepping the planet for our use, when technology gets to the point of transporting some of us there.

LIBERTARIAN---Let me tell you how this works---

1) Life on Mars---There is no God

2) No life on Mars---There is no God.

Then you have the interesting step of putting thoughts into the mind of the non-existant God. Trained seals are less amazing.

LIBERTARIAN---Let me tell you how this works---

1) Life on Mars---There is no God

2) No life on Mars---There is no God.

Then you have the interesting step of putting thoughts into the mind of the non-existant God. Trained seals are less amazing.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-28 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't know how your logic works, since humans have always assumed there was no life on the oputer planets, and never used that to say there was no god.

Even when there was speculation of life being on Mars because of the "canals", and Venus because of the "clouds", religious people denied that there was no life there because life was special to the Earth, and that evolution was a lie.

This shows that life is not special to the earth, and evolution is not a lie, and that "god" did not create life on earth as something special.

"Since humans have always assumed there was no life on the outer planets...."

It's a topic you know nothing about so you have assumed....wrongly.

"God did not create life on earth as something special..."

-Buffalo Bob

"Where are they (aliens)?"

-Enrico Fermi

"Since humans have always assumed there was no life on the outer planets...."

It's a topic you know nothing about so you have assumed....wrongly.

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-28 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Link?

Waiting on you.

;-)

"Where are they (aliens)?"

-Enrico Fermi

#8 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-28 02:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ask any of the astronauts who have seen them. Ask any of the pilots who have seen them. Ask any of the police that have seen them.

Just because you deny their existence and deny all of the thousands of credible reports, doesn't mean they aren't there. It simply means you ignore that you don't see what you don't want to see. The head of Project Blue Book--hired to debunk alien evidence and sightings---became a believer.

I agree with Bob, for all of his craziness. E.T. exists. If there is water on our moon, in our tiny galaxy, imagine the possibilities for wonderful worlds in the infinite outer space.

I don't believe in smokestacks on the moon, however.

I don't believe in smokestacks on the moon, however.

#11 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-11-28 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Neither do I. I have said several times that I don't believe it is a conventional smokestack, and that it just has a smokestacks general configuration. It has to be called something--what would you call it. Let's see what you do believe.

It has to be called something, but I seriously doubt there is a fire anywhere near it. It certainly doesn't ACT like a smokestack. Do you have the courage to make a statement as to what it is? Just so you don't duplicate other suggestions, here they are---you may choose from one of them, or offer your own. Here is the link.

Bob, no youtube, I'm at work! But I will check tonight when I get off.

Interpretations of electron microscopic images. Whatever. No smoking gun here.

"Ask any of the astronauts who have seen them (an alien)...."

I'll be glad to if you can name one.

The fact is, and I know I'm on firm ground here, is that if the aliens ARE here then we live for all intents and purposes in a form of zoo.

If you credit ALL reports of alien encounters, then many of our zookeepers are also psychosexual sadists.

BOB, I well understand your rationale for not believing in God, having been exposed to it for a very long time now. What I don't understand is how you don't see how that rationale undercuts some of your own beliefs.

If life could be on Mars, then life is easily prevalent throughout the universe. This shows that the earth and humanity is not unique, and not special to any god. Life can start anywhere. Had the conditions on Mars remained stable, there would be more evolved life forms there today.

#1 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-11-28 02:43 AM |

Carls sagan pretty much poved it in the late 70's/early 80's.
Just by sheer numbers alone, assuming the lowest number(just to be fair), there should be millions of planets with life here in our Milky Way alone.

And our galaxy is only one of billions.

Get over yourselves people.

"Just by sheer numbers alone...."

Is not an assertion of causality. It's an assertion of faith. Sagan was a rather contradictory man, it seems.

Billions and billions.

"Where are they (aliens)?"

-Enrico Fermi

#8 | Posted by Zed

apparently "they" are on Mars! This is astounding news if true.

As for where is the intelligent life in the Universe that is easy ...I don't think it exists. Just look around you...see any? I don't ... I am still looking for intelligent life right here on Earth! When will that happen?

But seriously, the odds are that there is life all over the Universe... Life is hardy and I believe we will find that it just inevitable that it arise given tie and conditions. LIFE is probably all over the Universe...it is normal (NATURAL) that the Universe would eventually organize itself into life. And then to reproduce itself and then to evolve. And then to rise up and become self aware. Look to the computers... it is normal that once they existed that they got faster and more powerful as we used them.. Eventually they will be so powerful that they too will become self aware just like we did (if we can last that long).

It is my bet that when our technology gets powerful enough we will find LIFE IS EVERYWHERE in every nook and cranny of the Universe.. just like it is here on Earth. WE will be lucky to be able to survive ourselves that long...Which is probably why LIFE can never (or rarely) ever Contact other LIFE...It has to make it long enough to develop the technology to do so without destroying itself in the process.

Time and the distances are so vast that it requires a very high level of technology to do this...and it will be a matter of luck that it arises close enough to make Contact without that higher level of technology.

The distances are just too vast to make Contact happen very often .

Maybe God made it that way on purpose to fuck with our heads. You know like He did with the dinosaur bones.

"Maybe God made it that way to fuck with our heads...."

Maybe so. By all indications it's sure fucking with BOB'S.

....it just inevitable that it will arise given enough time and the right conditions.....

Try this ---it takes faith to believe in a god of creation and it takes faith to believe there is not an existence of god----you can argue until the cows come home and still have no verifiable answer.

I'm a wee bit different than many who post on this topic. I'm not sure that finding an alien race will after all mean that much.

What's going to matter is how the aliens answer the first ten questions human beings put to them. And, you know, whatever they say is going to piss someone off.

I'm not sure that finding an alien race will after all mean that much.

you better rethink that.

If we contact a superior race and they believe in a "different" God then ours what do you think will happen to us?

Hint: Aztecs..Native Americans...etc

What's going to matter is how the aliens answer the first ten questions human beings put to them. And, you know, whatever they say is going to piss someone off.

If you could send one DR poster to speak with the aliens and let them know what we are all about, who would it be?

I would choose Larry because he has a very unique way of painting mental pictures of the human experiance. Just ask him about his body art artist that he goes to.

I am still looking for intelligent life right here on Earth!

#20 | Posted by donnerboy

Looking at some postings I can agree with that statement

"What do you think will happen to us....?"

Have no clue. Neither do you. To me the most signifcant thing in your scenario is that aliens believe in God. That's one of the ten questions.

If you could send one DR poster to speak with the aliens and let them know what we are all about, who would it be?

I would choose Larry because he has a very unique way of painting mental pictures of the human experiance. Just ask him about his body art artist that he goes to.

#26 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-11-28 05:28 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I would agree with that choice---the second positive would be that after they talked to Lar they would realize we're no threat and we probably wouldn't be exterminated.

G-d will one day take a big old shit and then decide to bring His flock home. The ones who did Good will be rewarded and the bad ones will be escorted out of heaven. That is what will happen to us in the end.

Larry

showing that microscopic worm-like structures found in a Martian meteorite that hit the Earth 13,000 years ago are almost certainly fossilised bacteria.

Their is life on Mars though because we sent it there on our space probes. Buzzkiller.

So we had Mars landers 13,000 years ago? 7,000 years before Adam?
Boy and you guys go after BB for smokestacks on the moon...

Plenty of aliens here in Florida. Some even here legally...

As for life in outer space, it is a certainty, from a probabilistic view.

At the same time as us? In our galaxy? Ever visiting us for Thanksgiving? Not so certain.

Have no clue. Neither do you. To me the most signifcant thing in your scenario is that aliens believe in God.

If you don't have a clue then you are not paying attention. History is replete with examples.

"History is replete with examples..."

Yes, human history is. Too funny.

"..What I don't understand is how you don't see how that rationale undercuts some of your own beliefs...#16 | Posted by Zed"

You should follow your own logic, Christo-Nazi.

Boy, that's telling me DUMPLING.

They say there are human colonies now on mars...

I think Zed is a Martian. He certainly can't be from earth.

Here's a thought...We find a superior race of beings somewhere out there and they turn out to be God and his kind. Now it turns out this race, like humans, has a shelf life and our creator, God, has passed away. Do we need to elect a new God or are we now free to do as we please with our lives. Without a new God elect there will be no heaven, no hell, nothing in between. No rapture, no second coming. but if we elect a new God every thing goes back to the way it was with occasional visits, miracles, etc. What do we do?

A Christo Nazi Martian? One more adjective and I'll be dangerous.

The Christo Nazi Martian Worm is here.

RUN!

The United Galactic Federation of the galaxy of Hendon a group of 574 planets claims all 574 planets are inhabited by humans, thousands of years more advanced than earth.

Yes, human history is. Too funny.

Yes Human History IS too funny but we digress.

Natural Selection is Natural Selection whether human or alien. Survial of the fittest probably works pretty much the same across the Universe or at least in a whole hell lot of it!

I, like many, suspect or all civilizations follow a pattern. They would have life cycles just like ours and as they discover more and become more self aware certain things will occur. At some point they become capable of destroying the very world they live on and themselves in the process. Though I am certain there are some strange exceptions too.

Or maybe we ARE the strange exception.

I thought the God question was already answered by all the pubbies. You all have been Obama the Messiah for two years now.

I think this is the the image of the original "bacteria" found in the meteorite. I thought it was proof enough back then I and think it so even more now. Especially since they have found so much pure water there.

BOB, I well understand your rationale for not believing in God, having been exposed to it for a very long time now.

I doubt you understand my beliefs at all. I say the biblical god is false, since it is based on known stories that are older than the bible. I do not claim there is no god, but what makes a god a god. To me, the god of humans would be a god that created humans, and has the power to end all human life if it so desired. Such a god could be a god of superior technology. An alien god. Even the biblical god is an alien god.

What I don't understand is how you don't see how that rationale undercuts some of your own beliefs.

I see no contradictions. Why would you say such a thing and not point out how some of my rationale undercuts some of my own beliefs.

#16 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-28 05:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or maybe we ARE the strange exception

----

So far we are. Out of all the other millions of species on this planet.

This gives hope to finding more substantial life on the moons of Jupiter and Neptune

Only ONE God created ALL life, phsycal as well as spiritual, and all things that exist, including the phsycal universe, Planets, Galaxies, stars, ect.

The one and only Creator God is Spirit, and is alien only to those who don't know him...

Only ONE God created ALL life, phsycal as well as spiritual, and all things that exist, including the phsycal universe, Planets, Galaxies, stars, ect.

The one and only Creator God is Spirit, and is alien only to those who don't know him...

#50 | Posted by Dr_Feelgood at 2009-11-29 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your ONE God seemed to have created life on Mars billions of years ago, and then changed His mind about letting it continue. I wonder what those bacteria did to piss Him off?

Ever wonder why God created all the hominids that walked the Earth before He created humans? Hominids like homo habilus, homo erectus, and even neanderthals? Was He just practicing? Maybe He loved Neanderthals more than humans, since they were around for 140,000 years, and humans only for 6,000 years.

Ever wonder?

"Ever wonder...?"

No, now that you mention it. God proposes and God disposes. It's in His job description. And I still want to know what astronaut met the alien.

"Humans only for 6,000 years...."

What do you think we were in 5,000 B.C., BOB?

"Natural selection is natural selection whether human or alien...."

Interesting attempt to make aliens like people. Well, maybe they will be. But I'm not counting on that, as any rational person should not.

But since we seem to be on the subject, an intelligent arachnid that went to it's equivalent of church would be an earth-shaking revelation.

No, now that you mention it. God proposes and God disposes.

Blind faith is just that---blind. Unquestioning faith is worthless. Any concept that can't stand up to rational thought is not rational.

It's in His job description. And I still want to know what astronaut met the alien.

I never said any astronaut met any alien. I said they claim to have seen alien crafts.

What do you think we were in 5,000 B.C., BOB?

#53 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-29 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Humans

"Unquestioning faith is worthless..."

I agree. That's why I meet so few people who have that.

What do you think we were in 1 million BCE Zed?

"Any concept that can't stand up to rational thought is not rational...."

I think you're attempting to say that it wouldn't be valid. The rational response is to say "it depends".

What do you think we were in 1 million BCE Zed?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-11-29 02:41 PM | Reply

No such thing But do carry on.

Larry

Interesting attempt to make aliens like people. Well, maybe they will be. But I'm not counting on that, as any rational person should not.

#54 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-29 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

The biblical god is an alien, and the bible says we were made in THEIR image and in THEIR likeness. I wonder how many of them there are.

Genesis
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

What US was this god referring to?

I don't know, BOB. When the Queen of England says "We", what is she referring to?

No such thing But do carry on.

Larry

#61 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-11-29 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

When did the universe begin in your view Larry? On what do you base your opnion?

You view pronouns as something special, we all know.

don't know, BOB. When the Queen of England says "We", what is she referring to?

#63 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-29 02:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Depending on context, she refers to her family or is speaking for all the people of her country. Do you think the Queen of England is God, or the equivelent of God? You seem intent on proving that you don't think very much. I believe you.

You view pronouns as something special, we all know.

#65 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-29 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

You don't seem to take the words of your God very special---willing to ignore those you don't like.

I think any man who rests a philosophy on an article of speech is a bit daft. You only need blush if this applies to you.

I think any man who rests a philosophy on an article of speech is a bit daft. You only need blush if this applies to you.

#68 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-29 02:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you reduce the words of your God to "articles of speech", you reduce your God. You are saying your God is too stupid to speak correctly. If your God is real, you have insulted Him.

God says there are other Gods---I bet you think your God is a liar also, since your God disagrees with your ONE God concept.

Exodus
34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Jealousy is a weakness of character--and your god says there are other gods. Go ahead--call him a liar.

BOB---God's word has never been challenged by me. I do have great fun, however, questioning your mastery of the language and your idosyncratic concept of the rational.

BOB---God's word has never been challenged by me. I do have great fun, however, questioning your mastery of the language and your idosyncratic concept of the rational.

#70 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-29 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag

Now you are just lying. You say your god is too stupid to speak correctly here:

Genesis
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

And you call your god a lair when he says there are other gods here:

Exodus
34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

No, I'm dealing with this line of argument like the trivia it is. You're pretty much all form, BOB, not substance. You would have made a good Pharisee.

Christianity is a very simple religion, BOB. So simple it's staggering once you realize it. But after you have, most arguments against it appear silly.

No, I'm dealing with this line of argument like the trivia it is. You're pretty much all form, BOB, not substance. You would have made a good Pharisee.

#72 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-29 03:17 PM | Reply | Flag

Facts are facts, and lies are lies. You can't seem to tell the diference between the two. Facts are you call your god stupid and a liar because your god makes statements you don't agree with. Then you simply lie about it.

I must have missed your answer as to what we were 1 million BCE. Or is that another concept you never think about too?

This is a dialogue you are primarily having with yourself, BOB. I'm just an unlucky tile in the echo chamber. But I'm starting to think maybe I do you a disservice with only that.

Christianity is a very simple religion, BOB. So simple it's staggering once you realize it. But after you have, most arguments against it appear silly.

#73 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-29 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is especially simple to someone like you who never reads the bible, thinks, or examines the history of the religion. I can understand your point.

That's right, BOB---I never think. I never read books and I just have an 8th Grade education. You caught me, pardner.

This is a dialogue you are primarily having with yourself, BOB. I'm just an unlucky tile in the echo chamber. But I'm starting to think maybe I do you a disservice with only that.

#75 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-29 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I must have missed your answer as to what we were 1 million BCE. Or is that another concept you never think about too.

Proving my point once more that you are an unthinking individual. The word "sheeple" shouldn't bother you---should not be an insult at all. You should be proud and honored to be one of Gods flock--bragging about being a "lamb of god" in fact.

"The word sheeple shouldn't bother you...."

Nope. Pardon me now. Going to do a few hours work and then off to church. Where, I promise, I'll pray for us both.

What US was this god referring to

Various interpretations exists.

a) The heavenly court, including the various choirs of angels, created prior to man.

b) The various aspects of God's nature as conceived by the ancient Hebrews. God is referred to by various names in scripture depending upon what attribute of God the writers want to emphasize; this is perhaps a reference to them all suggesting that humanity was created in a way that reflect the various attributes.

c) From a Christian point of view--the Trinity--three persons in one God.

d) Aliens. (Well, I thought I'd include your interpretation; you would in a second, anyway.)

I know you will not agree with A, B, and C but trust me, there is a thousand year exegetical tradition by learned theologians discussing them. D can be traced back to Eric Von Daniken--whose writings raise more heckles than accolades.

If you do respond, and I am doubtful you will because I am on your do not respond list, please do so in boldface. Your arguments are much more persuasive in bold.

el--I will respond, but I am tight for time right now. However, I never put my responses in boldface---I always put the person I am talking to in boldface, so they know the response is to them, or I put some significant quote in boldface so that people know it isn't me speaking. I rarely put my words in boldface, and never put a whole response in boldface. You don't seem to pay much attention to detail.

If you could send one DR poster to speak with the aliens and let them know what we are all about, who would it be?

#26 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-11-28 05:28 PM

101, and I'd hope that the ET's brought their cookbook with them.

Of course there is life in other places of the universe. I personally don't think the odds are very high regarding any of it making its way to Earth during the nano-existence of the human species (or vice-versa), but it's out there, for sure. The universe it just too vast for that not to be the case.

What does this story even have to do with god?

I'm just not surprised at all by this.

The bacteria on the meteor perished in Noah's flood.

#1 | POSTED BY BUFFALO_BOB
"If life could be on Mars, then life is easily prevalent throughout the universe.
This shows that the earth and humanity is not unique, and not special to any god.
Life can start anywhere.
Had the conditions on Mars remained stable, there would be more evolved life forms there today."

Your initial if-then statement is a bit off. Life can be prevalent throughout the universe regardless of Mars. In fact, you pretty much say that in line 3.

What does god have to do with this?
Oh, wait, you're compelled to say SOMETHING like that, aren't you.
Although your argument is illogical.
How does the uniqueness of humanity, or lack thereof, have any relevance to how special God finds us?
Oh, wait, you're compelled to say something like that, too.

"Had the conditions on Mars remained stable, there would be more evolved life forms there today."

No. Had the conditions on Mars remained stable, there MAY be more evolved life forms there today.

You have an odd fondness for accusing others of not thinking.
Please stop projecting.

#75 | POSTED BY ZED
"I'm just an unlucky tile in the echo chamber."

I'll apologize in advance, ZED, because I'm STEALING that line.
That's good eats.

Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars are laughing man!

So where were the spiders?

While the fly tried to break our balls.

Just a beer light to guide us.

Ziggy played for time, jiving us that we were voodoo

The kids were just crass, he was the nazz

With God given ass

He took it all too far but boy could he play guitar

Ziggy played

guitar!

What US was this god referring to

Various interpretations exists.

a) The heavenly court, including the various choirs of angels, created prior to man.

So the angels and god are equal--the same--they look the same and have the same attributes?

b) The various aspects of God's nature as conceived by the ancient Hebrews. God is referred to by various names in scripture depending upon what attribute of God the writers want to emphasize; this is perhaps a reference to them all suggesting that humanity was created in a way that reflect the various attributes.

So humanity looks like god and has the attributes of god? That doesn't say much for god.

c) From a Christian point of view--the Trinity--three persons in one God.

So Jesus was there? Who was his mother at that time, since this was before Mary was born.

d) Aliens. (Well, I thought I'd include your interpretation; you would in a second, anyway.)

The biblical god IS an alien by any definition of the word. However, this particular passage comes directly from the Enuma Elish creation story, where there were many gods, and makes perfect sense when placed in context.

I know you will not agree with A, B, and C but trust me, there is a thousand year exegetical tradition by learned theologians discussing them. D can be traced back to Eric Von Daniken--whose writings raise more heckles than accolades.

I never read Von Daniken---from what I have heard of his writing, and seen in his films, he is far behind Sitchin. D comes from the Enuma Elish, and has nothing to do with Von Daniken or Sitchin, and predates the bible and your "learned theologians" by several thousand years.

#80 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-11-29 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#88
Ooooooh yeah ah

#86 | Posted by TheTom at 2009-11-30 01:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Everything changes--everything evolves--nothing remains the same--nothing is eternal. Had life on Mars had a stable environment, it would have evolved into more complex life forms, as life on Earth did, and is still doing. Humans are not the end of evolution. If humanity doesn't make itself extinct, and the lineage continues for millions of years, the end result millions of years from now would most likely only feel pity for us, and our low level of evolutionary prcoess.

Ziggy played

guitar!

#88 | Posted by boojiboy

any civilization that makes it this far to see us should have some kick ass music. And some way cool gadgets too. In fact I bet a lot of us might actually mistake them for gods.

Unless they look like lizards.

If humanity doesn't make itself extinct...

Not sure about the rest of you this year but I am pretty pessimistic about our future prospects right now. Maybe it is just the holidays and all but things sure seem a bit tense to me!

"...our low level of evolutionary prcoess.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob"

UH......nevermind.

So the angels and god are equal--the same--they look the same and have the same attributes?

No that is a non sequitor; the belief is that God endowed the angels with some of his attributes as he later endowed humanity. Endowing with attributes is hardily the same as endowing omnipotence and omniscience.

So humanity looks like god and has the attributes of god? That doesn't say much for god.

That is not an argument.

The biblical god IS an alien by any definition of the word.

Most people see a distinction between the created (any being within the universe) and the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe. I know that you don't, and I also know there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

So Jesus was there? Who was his mother at that time, since this was before Mary was born

No, the son of God was there. His incarnation (word made flesh) occurs during our history by way of Mary and then he becomes Jesus.

(If you wish to understand how the "son proceeds from the father" you will need to read Aquinas. Of course, we are talking about pure spirit here, not physical entities.)

I know you will not agree with A, B, and C but trust me, there is a thousand year exegetical tradition by learned theologians discussing them. D can be traced back to Eric Von Daniken--whose writings raise more heckles than accolades.

I never read Von Daniken---from what I have heard of his writing, and seen in his films, he is far behind Sitchin. D comes from the Enuma Elish, and has nothing to do with Von Daniken or Sitchin, and predates the bible and your "learned theologians" by several thousand years.

Whatever, you are entitled to have your opinions.

No, the son of God was there. His incarnation (word made flesh) occurs during our history by way of Mary and then he becomes Jesus

Again, who was his mother?

Desperate scientists seeking additional funding.

#89 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-11-30 02:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Buffalo_Bob continues to play the role of the village idiot.

#98 | Posted by midtowncowboy at 2009-11-30 10:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

Prove it--answer the question loudmouth. If Jesus was the Son of God long before there was Mary, like Grendel says--who was his mother?

Waiting on you, idiot.

;-)

I don't understand why so many are pulling God into this conversation. If He exists then He surely runs the entire universe, and it is entirely possible for other planets to have life on them. Leaving plenty of room for God to be in the picture.

GRENDEL said you should read Aquinas, BOB. Editions of his work are probably available on the internet.

"Leaving plenty of room for God to be in the picture...."

Agreed.

GRENDEL said you should read Aquinas, BOB. Editions of his work are probably available on the internet.

#101 | Posted by Zed at 2009-11-30 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

SO? I say you should all read Sitchin. BFD.

-Again, who was his mother?

Bob's innate inability to separate things physical and things spiritual raises it's ugly head again.

Never read Stitchin. Have read Von Daniken. He was, what's the word, sophomoric?

The point is, BOB, is that GREDEL and ZED understand your thesis entirely. The problem is you, though there is no law saying you can't debate from a position of ignorance.

No, the son of God was there. His incarnation (word made flesh) occurs during our history by way of Mary and then he becomes Jesus

Again, who was his mother?

I was going to go into a long theological discussion of the nature of spiritual beings, the limits of human language and metaphor (i.e. biological kinship when applied to the spiritual) and the incarnation itself, but thought best to ask you a question more in line with your approach to the subject.

The God postulated is omnipotent. Is it possible for an omnipotent God to have a son without a mother? Yes or no?

SO? I say you should all read Sitchin. BFD.

Yes, say that, by all means, and when I have questions about ancient astronauts posing as deities, I will read him.

If you have questions about theology then read theologians.

This thread is insane. The confirmation of fossilized bacteria in the meteorite after a decade of debate is a great discovery that neither proves nor disproves anyone's religious beliefs.

This thread is insane. The confirmation of fossilized bacteria in the meteorite after a decade of debate is a great discovery that neither proves nor disproves anyone's religious beliefs.

Insane? Well, no. Off on a tangent? yes.

The question about origins of anything, in particular life, raise certain philosophical and spiritual questions as well as scientific ones.

I do agree with your second point, though.

Grendel, Zed, you might be interested in this mix of history, science, and religion.

I saw the video, but the script is here intact and heavily footnoted.

More Mental Masturbation brought to us by the fine Morons at Grendel Inc. Purveyors of Crap explinations for magical causes.

You're like a whoopee cushion, bitch. Full of stanky air and waiting for some idiot to sit on you so you can expel your empty and bankrupt 'philosophies'

As usual Dumpling, thank you for your interest in my posts. I will give your comments all the time and attention they deserve.

#112 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-11-30 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag: Microseconds would be too much

#96 Buffalo Bob> Again, who was his mother?

If Jesus was a spirit being prior to his birth in the flesh, then he had no mother at that time. He claimed as much when confronting the Pharisees when he said, "before Abraham was born, I am!" (NIV, John 8:58). This was a clarification of Jesus' saying to the Pharisees that "Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

Abraham having lived approximately 1900-1700 BC, this points to the claim by Jesus to have been living prior to Abraham. It also makes a secondary claim by Jesus to being equal to God in his unity with God's "I AM" statement to Moses (see Exodus 3:14 for the original incident).

#114 | Posted by AKat at 2009-11-30 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag

No mother---no son. Too tough for you to grasp? If you claim Jesus is the son of God, you are claiming a lineage--a family. If not, then don't use the word SON, and don't use the word "begotten". Grendel claims Jesus was the Son of God when God created the Earth--if so, there had to be a Mother of Jesus, and that would mean that there is more than one God, since it takes two to breed, unless God is an ameoba type of entity.

In addition, your quote---"before Abraham was born, I am!" (NIV, John 8:58) does nothing to address the question of who his mother was. If Jesus was a Son---he had to have a mother, and it wasn't Mary.

Oh Jesus Fucking Christ Buffalo Bob. If G-d made everything why would Jesus have a heavenly Mother?? Lord how idiotic can You get.

Larry

BB,

Just answer the question:

The God postulated is omnipotent. Is it possible for an omnipotent God to have a son without a mother? Yes or no?

Is it possible for an omnipotent God to have a son without a mother?

Is it possible for an omnipotent god to create a liquor so powerful that he cannot finish the bottle?

Oh Jesus Fucking Christ Buffalo Bob. If G-d made everything why would Jesus have a heavenly Mother?? Lord how idiotic can You get.

Obviously not as idiotic as you. Are you saying God created Jesus? Then what is the difference between Jesus and Adam, and why doesn't God call Adam his Son also, and why not call Eve his daughter also? Come on idiot---let's see how idiotic you can be.

Waiting on you.

;-)

Larry

#116 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-11-30 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The God postulated is omnipotent. Is it possible for an omnipotent God to have a son without a mother? Yes or no?"

That answer could be yes assuming he created that child at the same time he created all of existence, and not that child springing to creation in a way no other child has ever been observed to after god created everything else......

LM

That answer could be yes assuming he created that child at the same time he created all of existence

#120 | Posted by Liberal_Mongrel at 2009-11-30 02:14 PM

That answer could be yes assuming he created that child at the same time he created all of existence, and not that child springing to creation in a way no other child has ever been observed to after god created everything else......

Please excuse me, if this is not clear, but I am not an Aquinas scholar, but I will attempt to explain it nonetheless.

As explained by Aquinas, when human beings contemplate themselves, they hold in their mind an image and idea of themselves. That thought has a reality as a thought.

When God contemplates himself, being perfect, his thought or contemplation of himself has all the requirements of perfection--and most importantly actual existence being one of the attributes of perfection.

Using relationship terminolgy understood by human beings, the father we say begats the son.

God contemplating himself begats the second aspect of the deity, thus giving us two entities of the triune deitiy. The relationship that the father and son immediately share is distinct from the two and also has the attribute of perfection and thus is a distinct and actual entity. This is the holy spirit.

As Dante would write in Canto 33 of Paradiso

Within the deep and luminous subsistence
Of the High Light appeared to me three circles,
Of threefold colour and of one dimension,
And by the second seemed the first reflected
As Iris is by Iris, and the third
Seemed fire that equally from both is breathed.

We are unable to say when this occured as it is abut the essence of God himself and beyond God's creation of time, space and matter.

Perhaps you can see this is beyond the question of mother and father--those are human constructs that best approximate the relationship God shares in the trinity.

Must sign off for now. Check in later.

#114 BBob> No mother---no son. Too tough for you to grasp? If you claim Jesus is the son of God, you are claiming a lineage--a family. If not, then don't use the word SON, and don't use the word "begotten". Grendel claims Jesus was the Son of God when God created the Earth--if so, there had to be a Mother of Jesus, and that would mean that there is more than one God, since it takes two to breed, unless God is an ameoba type of entity.

You apparently don't understand the concept of the trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Per the Bible, all three are co-equal, omnipotent and eternal in nature. Again, per the Bible (and most Christian theologians) they are all three eternal, thus negating any creation nor any end of their existence.

Your argument about God having to have a Mother to create something is ludicrous on the surface: God claims to have created all things in existence EXCEPT the three parts of the trinity. In that respect God is the source, using nothing to make something.

>In addition, your quote---"before Abraham was born, I am!" (NIV, John 8:58) does nothing to address the question of who his mother was. If Jesus was a Son---he had to have a mother, and it wasn't Mary.

The idea in the Hebrew phrase "I AM" identifies a pre-existence that goes back to eternity past. He (God the father, Jesus the Son, the Holy Spirit) was never created. The only place that Mary plays a part was, as Grendel mentioned, in providing a physical womb for Jesus to be born in the flesh. Jesus claimed to have existed with God the father prior to his time on earth and said he was going back to the father after his existence on earth. Pretty simple, huh?

#121 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-11-30 03:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Blah blah blah. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. I haven't heard so much bullshit since the last time I bought a used car.

If God created Jesus---no matter at what TYIME he created Jesus, then Jesus is in no way a SON of God, and that terminology should not be used when describing Jesus's relationship to God. Humans can comprehend "construct", and "Son", and creation. Of the three terms, "Son" is the least applicable following your explanation. I suppose you forget about the word "begotten" until you need it.

Occams razor says that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" and the conclusion, thereof, that the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one.

In this case, the phrase under question comes from Enuma Elish. Aquinas never heard of Enuma Elish, and assumed the bible was the Word of God. He was mistaken. In the original context, the "US" referred to other gods that were present. Alien gods that created humans by crossing their DNA with the local hominid at the time to create humans. Occams Razor makes more sense than the far reaching Bullshit you've been throwing out there. I take 21st century logic and known history over 13th century theology by a man who was completely ignorant of human history, and never even made it to 50 years old.

Pretty simple, huh?

#122 | Posted by AKat at 2009-11-30 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Simple minded. In what way could Jesus be considered to be a Son of God? Saying I AM---doesn't cut it. SON has a specific meaning---how does that meaning apply to Jesus and God?

I found some marsh......

Oops, I thought this was about Lucky Charms.

Never mind.

Might as well be though.

I hear Jesus was from Mars as well. Had a nice mud hut and all. Saw it in Intergalactic Geographic.

Actually He was THE son of God, not A.

Actually He was THE son of God, not A.

#126 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-30 04:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

In what way was Jesus THE son of God? Was Jesus ever born? Was Jesus ever carried in a womb(before Mary)? Did Jesus have Gods DNA, Exactly how could Jesus be considered a SON? What attributes does Jesus have that makes him a SON?

I guess you disregard the bible when it says there were many sons of God, and that these sons of God had sex with humans and begat children. How convenient. But those children were REAL sons and daughters.

#124 Bbob spouted his usual trash> Simple minded. In what way could Jesus be considered to be a Son of God? Saying I AM---doesn't cut it. SON has a specific meaning---how does that meaning apply to Jesus and God?

I don't know why I decided to answer you, better to have banged my head against a brick wall. ;~) Um, God said that Jesus was his son. If that isn't good enough for you, then you will certainly discount any other Bible verses I quote, thus proving the pointlessness of replying to you. If you don't want to accept Bible verses as proof for the position many/most Christian theologians take, that's fine. I certainly will not agree with you, because I've seen in the past you twist meanings to suit yourself, and again that is your choice to make. And I'm certainly not going to waste my time going back through my reference books and lecture notes on Hebrew words and phrases to give you more meaning into the English translations.

The answer I gave you WAS SIMPLE, not SIMPLE MINDED, two very different things. There is often a simple elegance to mathmatical equations (IMO) but that certainly doesn't make them simple minded. LOL!!!

Um, God said that Jesus was his son.

#128 | Posted by AKat at 2009-11-30 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Really. Where in the bible does God say that?

I've seen in the past you twist meanings to suit yourself, and again that is your choice to make.

For instance?

Let's see you twist the meaning of this to suit yourself. Let's see you twist again Chubby Checker.

Genesis
6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Sounds like there were lots of sons of God. Here's some music to help you think.

#128 AKAT> Um, God said that Jesus was his son.

#129 BBob, ignoring reality, logic and the time/space continuum replied> Really. Where in the bible does God say that?

"While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." Matthew 17:5 KJV

And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Matthew 3:17

But of course since Matthew is not a Martian he could not have heard this from God himself.

Funny how some people cannot believe in things of faith when it comes to God BUT have all the faith in the world in wacko theories that take much more to believe.

I think God had something to say about that as well.

And why he allowed the invention of anti-psychotic drugs.

#130 Bbob tries going down the same old trail...

I fell for that once. I spent a lot of time digging through my notes from a class in Genesis. took you by the hand through the 'apparent meaning' of Genesis chapter 6, and even went so far as to quote a bit from the textbook (which I gave you the title/author) and my notes on the Hebrew words involved.

I may have been ignorant to fall for that once, but not as dumb as you are to bring it up again. You didn't learn anything the first time so I'm not trying to teach a pig to sing. LOL!!

-And why he allowed the invention of anti-psychotic drugs.

Which leaves you no excuse for not self-prescribing, the need being painfully obvious to all.

You got it Kat, don't waste your time.

That is what he wants.

He has no foundation in his life so......

Swim and try to make others go down with you.

And right on time....

Cap'n Payback to the rescue!!!!!!!

Add him to the list of stalkers now on my dole.

Royalties are paid monthly Dorky, now back in the cage. LOL.

The Chumpel is a prime example of why many modern so-called, "Christians", which are in reality mostly anti-intellectual cowards and hypocritical pompous asses of the first order, are becoming America's modern day lepers, ignored and laughed at by a society that can embrace the concept of love, but not of hate-mongering and self-righteousness.

With friends like these, ones he said he would not even bother to recognize, Christ doesn't really even need enemies.

And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Matthew 3:17

#132 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-11-30 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is a supposed disciple of Jesus reporting this event, and there is considerable doubt that it happened. If it happened, why would John the Baptist, who baptized Jesus, have any doubts as to Jesus being the son of God when he asks later, in Mathew 11. 2-3, if Jesus was the Saviour?

Mathew 11

11:2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

11:3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

You do realize that 11 comes after 3 don't you? It's true, believe it or not. Since John the Baptists didn't hear those words, I doubt the words of the disciple who says it happens. Those were not the words of God--they were the words of a disciple. John the Baptist didn't even go personally to see the "Son of God"--he sent a lackey. FAIL.

"While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." Matthew 17:5 KJV

That is not God speaking---that is a disciple of Jesus saying he heard the words. Got anything where God is speaking in the 1st person--like I did? No? Then you are mistaken.

#131 | Posted by AKat at 2009-11-30 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

took you by the hand through the 'apparent meaning' of Genesis chapter 6, and even went so far as to quote a bit from the textbook (which I gave you the title/author) and my notes on the Hebrew words involved.

#133 | Posted by AKat at 2009-11-30 04:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bullshit is bullshit---even if you took a class on it. That all comes from Enuma Elish, and no interpretation is necessay. The passage is correct in its detail. It also explains the apparent longevity of the people of the bible. The gods lived for thousands of years. Their offspring with humans would have no trouble living for hundreds of years in the diluted gene pool. There you go again, twisting the words of the bible to suit your beliefs.

;-)

Blah blah blah. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. I haven't heard so much bullshit since the last time I bought a used car.

I understand the significance and cause for this kind of "rebuttal" to an argument. I will try not to challenge the assumptions and viewpoints that provide the foundation for your world view in the future.

Your retorts, however, are a wonderful example of how the blinders that fundamentalists wear also fit a variety of heads.

In this case, the phrase under question comes from Enuma Elish. Aquinas never heard of Enuma Elish, and assumed the bible was the Word of God. He was mistaken. In the original context, the "US" referred to other gods that were present. Alien gods that created humans by crossing their DNA with the local hominid at the time to create humans. Occams Razor makes more sense than the far reaching Bullshit you've been throwing out there. I take 21st century logic and known history over 13th century theology by a man who was completely ignorant of human history, and never even made it to 50 years old.

If this is what passes for the height of 21st century logic and apt application of Ockham, then I gladly turn my back on it and will count your rebuttals as a kind of compliment and an affirmation of my positions.

Can I still be on your list?

And why he allowed the invention of anti-psychotic drugs.

Ironically he didn't grant you the insight to realize that you need them.

The bacteria on the meteor perished in Noah's flood.

You're joking, right?

When God contemplates himself,

Curious. Why would God do that? God is, after all, omniscient.

Perhaps he stopped after doing it twice and seeing the results.

Curious. Why would God do that? God is, after all, omniscient.

Contemplate does not necessarily mean to question something or wonder from a point of unknowing.

It can mean to meditate on or merely to think about--to turn an idea over in one's mind.

Of course, our understanding of how God thinks is limited by our human comprehension of human thinking itself.

More to the point Aquinas offers an understanding of the Trinity--not the definitive understanding. Ultimately, it is a matter of faith and acceptance of a mystery.

Out again. Busy day. Be back later--hopefully.

The bacteria on the meteor perished in Noah's flood.

You're joking, right?

#143 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-11-30 06:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hell no!

Deadly serious man!!!

Can I still be on your list?

#141 | Posted by Grendel at 2009-11-30 05:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Absolutely, and you can worship all the Sky Fairies you like. They don't know what constitutes a SON either.

;-)

Theology is philosophy with a safety net.