Rational Christian look at UFOs and Extraterrestrials.

The founder of Reasons to Believe presents a rational Christian look at UFOs and extraterrestrials.

Hugh Ross has a B.S, Physics, University of British Columbia; M.S. & Ph.D., Astronomy, University of Toronto.
Mr. Ross is the co-author of, Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men (NavPress, 2002)

Hugh has been stargazing since he was a young boy, and by the age of 17, he had become director of observations for the Royal Astronomical Society in Canada. As an astronomer, Hugh has logged thousands of observation time and has learned that science can and does address the possibility of life’s existence elsewhere in the universe. In the mid-'70s, Hugh was assigned the task of processing UFO reports at CalTech. At the same time, Hugh began an intense study of the Bible. "Secular society is gullible about the possibility that extraterrestrial life exists without having scientific evidence to prove it," says Hugh. "The motivation for this book is the need to communicate clear, satisfying explanations from scientific, theological, philosophical, and political standpoints."

Hugh says that he uses the scientific approach called "the process of elimination" to answer the question Is there a place where extraterrestrials could live in the universe? Over the years, science has made some significant advances. "The number of candidates for life sites within the Milky Way grows smaller each day," says Hugh. At one time, biologists speculated that extraterrestrial life forms might be based on exotic chemistry, not carbon as earthly life is. But today the conclusion is that all conceivable life forms must be carbon-based. And if life forms exist on other planets, they must be planets like Earth, orbiting a star like the sun in a galaxy like the Milky Way. "Ongoing research shows that this seems less possible as each year passes," says Hugh.

Most people think UFOs are physical. "But they can’t be physical," says Hugh, "because they defy gravity." While Hugh does not say that UFOs aren’t real, no physical object can move like UFOs have been reported to move. Respected UFOolgists agree that there must be something real at the bottom of some UFO reports. Residual UFOs (RUFOs) is a terminology that refers to the UFOs that are left over after all the others are explained away. There is quite a bit of evidence that UFOs are real, such as crash sites. There are over 1,000 sites where allegedly the UFOs have crashed. "The ground is depressed, the trees and grass are burnt," says Hugh. "In these scenarios, we are dealing with non-physical reality." What this evidence suggests is that RUFOs are capable of producing physical effects, such as burnt grass, but are not physical themselves.

Hugh says the Bible proclaims the existence of a personal Creator who can act independently outside the cosmos and who is not restricted by the four, large space-time dimensions (length, width, height or time). The Bible also describes the spirit realm (the realm beyond matter, energy and space-time dimensions) and declares the existence of God and two or more distinct creatures: humans and angels. Hugh explains that humans remain physically restricted to the dimensions of the cosmos and cannot account for the unexplained phenomena. Angels, or fallen angels, remain as possible links. Fallen angels, or demons, intent on distorting God’s authority and purpose, draw attention away from God and the gospel and are an identifiable source of explanation.

The conclusion that demons are behind the RUFOs phenomenon is testable. According to the Bible, demons attack only those individuals who invite the attacks. "All that is necessary to further prove the conclusion of demonic involvements," says Hugh, "is to continue surveying people to ascertain who has encounters with RUFOs and who does not." Researchers continue to observe a correlation between the degree of invitations in a person’s life to demonic attacks (séance, Ouija boards, astrology, witchcraft, palm or psychic reading). One reason why research scientists may be reluctant to say specifically that demons exist behind the RUFOs is because that answer points too directly to a Christian interpretation of the problem.

Reasons to Believe is an interdenominational ministry that communicates the basis for belief in the Bible as the true Word of God.
www.reasons.org

You said that those that teach of a supernatural God commit hideous child abuse. Christians are certainly in that group. It's irrelevent whether you meant them exclusively or not since they are certainly included in your grouping.

It isn't relevant because post 251 identified all people who partake in injecting one of the four non-realities/mysticism into other people's minds. You claimed that post 251 was meant/directed at just Christians and Christianity. Post 251 was not meant/directed to single out the sub-group of Christians or any other sub-group. No where have you said that in post 251 I meant/directed it to single out any other sub-group. No where have you said that I meant/directed it to identify all the people in the largest group. You claimed that post 251 was meant/directed at the Christian sub-group.

If I had meant/directed post 251 at Christians and or Christianity I would have made that clear. Frankly, in my mind as I was writing post 251 I suspected that persons in the sub-group that would most benefit from it would be the non-believers or atheists sub-group. I kept that to myself.

While I was writing what would become post 251 I was writing to all people that would eventually read it. That included the few people that already knew what was explained in post 251. Thus, the persons that post 251 was meant/directed at was quite literally every possible person that could read it. That's precisely why I did not specifically identify or single out any sub-group. Nor have I ever done so in the past when posting a similar explanation on this forum other forums or in verbally speaking to people.

I repeat, you claimed that post 251 was meant/directed at just the Christian sub-group. That is your error and problem, not mine. Also, in post 251 it doesn't specifically identify any person or group of persons that were excluded. Post 251 did by common-sense logic exclude persons that did not partake in injecting one of the four non-realities/mysticism into other people's minds.

Post #251 does exist and it says that those that teach their children commit hideous child abuse.

Back up that claim with facts or admit your error and correct it. Perhaps you meant to say that but more probable is that your mysticism-polluted mind has simple failed you and one symptom that has shown through is your carelessness -- carelessness that has gotten way out of hand.

Zon: Furthermore, you have carried on to considerable length to support your mind-spun fabrication via your rationalizations. 315

Thinking that Christians teach of a supernatural God is a mind-spun rationaization? LOL

The mind-spun fabrication you created and tried to support via your rationalizations was that post 251 was meant/directed at Christians.

Zon: Furthermore, you have carried on to considerable length to support your imagined, mind-spun fabrication with rationalizations. 315

Saying that Christians teach of a supernatural God is a mind-spun rationization? Give it up. You've lost this war. Post #251 is there for all to see.

I repeat, the mind-spun fabrication you created and tried to support via your rationalizations was that post 251 was meant/directed at Christians.

I put forth an analogy. Two weeks ago a Washington Post reporter created a mind-spun fabrication. He wrote that in a speech President Bush said that it was Senate Democrats that were stalling Homeland Security. That is, the Washington Post writer claimed that President Bush's comment was meant/directed at the Senate Democrats sub-group. When in fact President Bush said that it was the Senators (the whole group identified) that were stalling Homeland Security.

Hundreds of Freepers jumped on that mind-spun fabrication that the Washington Post reporter had created. A few other news sources had articles in their printed papers and online articles that claimed the same as the Washington Post article.

Several articles that weren't liberal-biased were posted on FreeRepublic. In those articles the writers pointed out the mind-spun fabrication in the Washington Post article and other articles that claimed the same.

It was clear to virtually every Freeper who read one or more of those non-liberal-biased articles that at best it was an error and at worst, intentional deception via mind-spun fabrication. Considering the liberal bias in the news outlets that reported the mind-spun fabrication as truth, the vast majority of Freepers took the position that it was a deliberate deception being foisted on the readers of those news outlets.

Again, the Washington Post writer's mind-spun fabrication that he created was that President Bush meant/directed his comment at the Senate Democrat sub-group -- when in fact, President Bush meant/directed his comment at the Senate which is inclusive of all Senators.

#3Fan: You say that Christians have a tendency toward child abuse. 272
#3Fan: Zon got all self-righteous accusing Christians of the evil of child abuse. 276

#3Fan, you created a problem for yourself that need not exist in the first place. Then, rather than correcting the problem you expanded it into a much bigger problem, considerably worse than making a mere error.

Perhaps you recall what I said in post 296: "When making errors, it is always the person that makes the error that benefits the most by correcting his or her own errors."

I will now add: the worst thing a person can do with an error is to compound it. For it makes it that much more difficult to correct the larger problem/error.

As one poster said to you: "Failure to substantiate or explain your claims will create the impression of dishonesty in many people's minds." 282

#3Fan, you have had more than ample opportunity to correct your error. Still, you can admit your error and correct it. An error that goes beyond a mere error. A mere error is an "innocent" error that every person is prone to make from time to time. You've compounded your problem to where it appears clear that you've attempted to foist deliberate deception on the readers of this thread.

A word of advice, suck it up and be honest and you'll benefit the most. A side benefit is that you'll likely regain credibility in the eyes of others.

Follow up to post 251
(Post 251 reposted at the bottom here.)

What was explained in post 251 should have been obvious but unfortunately it's not to the vast majority of people. Adults injecting non-realities/mysticism into little children in their formative years -- leading by setting a bad example -- is dishonest. Especially when it's done with supposed good intentions for the child and not just to lie so as to cover up ones own actions. That is, a lot of people lie to protect themselves. Young children do it often -- gee, I wonder where and from whom they learned to lie. For sure they at least in part learned from their parent's who lead by example. Learned from the very people the trusted most.

As the child grows older and matures they learn that lying is wrong. But they have to figure that out in face of contradictory examples their parents and other adults put forth. The non-realities/mysticism mentioned in post 251 were not done as protection, they were lies that intended to mislead the child's innocent mind when they hadn't yet formed a set of skills and abilities to have confidence in their own mind's ability to identify and integrate reality. Inflicted on the innocent child's mind in the name of fun and love.

A young child striving to accurately identify reality and integrate it with other factual objective realities he or she previously succeeded in constructing will often look up to his or her parents; asking a parent or other adult to confirm whether or not they (the child himself or herself) have accurately identified reality. Most unfortunate when people, especially parents, inject one of the four non-realities/mysticism into the child's innocent mind they thwart the child's healthy process and progress. Thwarting the child's natural alignment with being honest -- the young child's effort to differentiate good from bad, justice from injustice and reality from non-reality. Injected mysticism works to disintegrate previous factual objective realities the young-formative child previously succeeded in constructing.

The only non-realities that a young child should or would have to overcome is non-realties that arise in his or her own mind. Free of non-realities being injected into the young child's mind from outside sources, limited to only overcoming and rejecting his or her own mind-created non-realities, a young child would quickly and easily strengthen his or her mind-agility skills to reject all forms of non-realities/mysticism.

Think about it, if an adult has not figured out the information in the first three of four paragraphs for themselves -- as obvious as it should have been for them to see -- having near totally missed the obvious, yet when suddenly the adult does understand what they were previous blind to -- blind to two aspects (1) blind to what occurred when they were a young child as they struggled to accurately identify reality, unaware that people, especially their parents were thwarting their progress, and (2) blind as an adult to how they had in the past thwarted their own child's and or other young children's struggle to accurately identify reality -- differentiate good from bad, justice from injustice, reality from non-reality -- thus thwarting the child's natural conscious process and development.

...Think about it, if an adult couldn't figure that out on their own and it took someone else to explain it -- to identify each piece of the puzzle and then let each piece fall into its proper place -- they adult would be thinking to themselves something like, "since I was so blind to what happened when I was a child and blind to what I did as an adult, it is perhaps possible that I've been blind and unable to figure out for myself that no supernatural God exist in reality. I mean, since before today I couldn't figure out on my own the negative effects of having mysticism injected into me as a young-formative child nor before today I couldn't figure out on my own how I injected mysticism into young-formative children as an adult, then it's entirely possible that I have been unable to reject the supernatural God non-reality/mysticism injected into me day in and day out, year after year ever since I was a young child."

The development of a young child's earliest formative years is critical to maturing into an adult that can rely on his or her own identifications of reality and ability to integrate various in-context facts of reality into their own natural, limitless conscious power and greatness. Thus empowering themselves to fulfill their responsibility to live happily and prosperously by creating values that benefit themselves, others and society.

Now it's more easily understood how many adults have been unable to reject the the secular Gods -- mob democracy, socialism, and fascism. Mysticism injected into young school children and perpetuated through high school. Then surrounded in their adult lives via academics, journalists, newspapers, local evening news. The most harmful frauds come from the big three world-news providers -- ABC, CBS and NBC -- major newspapers, politicians, bureaucrats and most lawyers. All of whom knowingly manipulate mysticism in people. And there's employers, friends and acquaintances, whom almost all of them unknowingly support, some more than others, the dishonesty, irrationality and crimes of one or more of the secular Gods. Quite literally, a person is engulfed in an environment that supports mysticism. Still, it is each person's individual responsibility to accurately identify reality and integrate it while rejecting mysticism. Each individual is the highest authority.

* * *

Repost of post 251:

"I can't fathom seeking tricks or any thing from nothing. I think it's debilitating to a person who seeks that which doesn't exist in reality and only in their mind. Right up their with Santa Clause, an Easter Bunny and tooth fairy.
"Flying reindeer towing a fat man in a sleigh, an Easter bunny, tooth fairy and supernatural God. Such mysticism injected into innocent little minds striving to accurately identify reality in their formative years. Often looking up to their parents to confirm whether or not they have accurately identified reality. Those young innocent children betrayed in the name of fun and love. What causes such hideous child abuse? Mysticism: the number-one disease of the conscious mind."

No I didn't. Where?

Post 251 was not meant/directed to single out the sub-group of Christians or any other sub-group. No where have you said that in post 251 I meant/directed it to single out any other sub-group. No where have you said that I meant/directed it to identify all the people in the largest group. You claimed that post 251 was meant/directed at the Christian sub-group.

Of course it was. They are believers and teachers of a supernatural God. But they aren't the only ones.

If I had meant/directed post 251 at Christians and or Christianity I would have made that clear.

You said those that teach and believe in a supernatural God commit hideous child abuse. That includes Christians. There's no getting around that.

I repeat, you claimed that post 251 was meant/directed at just the Christian sub-group.

No I didn't. Show me where I did.

That is your error and problem, not mine. Also, in post 251 it doesn't specifically identify any person or group of persons that were excluded. Post 251 did by common-sense logic exclude persons that did not partake in injecting one of the four non-realities/mysticism into other people's minds.

Boloney. You're screwed anyway because most Christians speak of the other three anyway.

Back up that claim with facts or admit your error and correct it.

Post #251 says that those that teach of a supernatural God commit hideous child abuse.

I repeat, the mind-spun fabrication you created and tried to support via your rationalizations was that post 251 was meant/directed at Christians.

It was directed at those that teach of a supernatural God which includes Christians, of course.

Some were stalling, some weren't. You're problem is that you said that those that teach of a supernatural God commit hideous child abuse and that includes all Christians.

And your comment was meant against those that teach of a supernatural God, which includes all Christians.

You're the one with the problem as the bystander has pointed out. You made your comment and now you don't have the guts to retract it nor admit to it, which is amazing considering it's there for all to see.

As one poster said to you: "Failure to substantiate or explain your claims will create the impression of dishonesty in many people's minds." 282

Yeah, the guy that endorsed your claim that God worshippers commit child abuse. LOL

3Fan, you have had more than ample opportunity to correct your error. Still, you can admit your error and correct it. An error that goes beyond a mere error. A mere error is an "innocent" error that every person is prone to make from time to time. You've compounded your problem to where it appears clear that you've attempted to foist deliberate deception on the readers of this thread.

Too late buddy you lose. You said God worshippers commit hideous child abuse. That includes Christians and there's no way for you to escape that fact.

A word of advice, suck it up and be honest and you'll benefit the most. A side benefit is that you'll likely regain credibility in the eyes of others.

Be honest and own up to your post #251.

I got some questions that I bet you don't have the guts to answer:

1: Do you believe that Christians practice mysticism?
2: Do you believe that those who teach their children mysticism commit child abuse in so doing?
3: Do you believe Christians commit child abuse when they teach about God to their children?

Let's see you worm out of these questions. LOL

You: "Since when do you have to believe that the earth was created in seven days to be a Christian?"

If the Bible means nothing to you then by all means believe whatever you wish. The Bible clearly states otherwise and contradicts your hero Hugh Ross.

You: "What other 'rules' have you made up in order to gain salvation?"

Again if God irritates you with His message, then ignore it but don't refer to yourself as a Christian. If you can't believe the foundation of the Bible, Genesis, then you couldn't possibly be on board with John 3:16 because you donb't believe what He says. It is all or nothing. FOr the life of me, I can't imagine why someone would profess to be a Christian and not believe what is stated in the Bible about it.

You: "Hugh Ross is one of the finest Christian men I know and I can tell from the way you speak of him that you do not know the man. "

You are not fluent with the Word fo God and easily impressed. I've read his stuff and have specific reasons for what I say. All you can do is subtly name call me. Care to be specific on why you are so balled over with this idiot? Your best bet is to start reading the Word of God and then compare it to this evolutionist.

You: "Don't always believe what others tell you about some one. Don't judge another brother because of your pride in being 'right'. "

I don't believe what mere fallible mortals cook up to fit in with other fallible mortals. I take God's Word to heart. Yes, I know this is not popular. This is also written about in the Bible. As for "pride", I think you'd be wise to do some introspection of yourself on that. I go by God's Word. You hang your faith on evolutionist, Hugh Ross. Bet ya God is right!

You: "When Hugh is attacked by others in the Christian community, he always responds in a Christian manner, in the likeness of Christ."

Maybe you could learn from him on that but more importantly it is the CONTENT that is important. Sure it's "nice" when someone isn't ugly when they lie but the fact that this guy is lying doesn't impress me. Christ also had little regard for those thatdistorted His teachings in His time. I suppose I also share a distain for those who lie about Him and what is written.

#3Fan: You made your comment and now you don't have the guts to retract it nor admit to it, which is amazing considering it's there for all to see. 328
#3Fan: Gee, that big long post and not one mention of the words "child abuse" except in your repost of #251. I'd say I've done a great job of making you run away from your ill-advised statement of post #251 (patting self on back). Do you often make wild accusations and then run away from them. In the same conversation even? LOL 329

I have reposted post 251 four times -- those reposts are at: 269, 309, 315 and 327. Also, in post 309 I told you that "I repost it proudly". I have made reference to post 251 in at least six separate post including numerous links to post 251. I never tried to hide from post 251. All that attention I have given to post 251 certainly isn't that of a person not admitting to having written post 251. Heck I already told you I repost it proudly. No matter how dishonestly you claim that I won't admit to post 251 and stand behind it. The facts are on record for all readers following this discussion to verify for themselves and make up their own minds. I will not retract anything in post 251. Here' what I wrote in post 309:

Zon: I never pretended post 251 doesn't exist. I repost it proudly at the top of this post with a link back to the original. 309

You have more than demonstrated your penchant for blatant dishonesty. Go ahead and puff your chest, pat yourself on the back and declare victory. For in reality you have won nothing and have only discredited yourself.

#3Fan: You say that Christians have a tendency toward child abuse. 272
#3Fan: Zon got all self-righteous accusing Christians of the evil of child abuse. 276
#3Fan: ...relevent to a atheist vs. Christion debate when the debate turns to crimes committed by each. Zon ...made the mistake of taking this argument in that direction and now they're getting nuked for it. 277

#3Fan: Post #251 does exist and it says that those that teach their children commit hideous child abuse. 317

Those false claims you made are well document on this thread. As is my repeated calls for you to back up your claim with valid facts or admit your errors and correct them. You chose neither and instead chose to compound your problem. So be it. Post 326 was thorough and also my final post regarding your false claims in post 272, 276, 277 and 317 (all four reposted above) and your dishonesty in dealing with them.

I've met your kind before. You guys think if you repeat a lie enough times, it will become truth. But truths are subborn things as Reagan would say and the truth is that you said that those that teach their kids of a supernatural God commit hideous child abuse.

Heck I already told you I repost it proudly. No matter how dishonestly you claim that I won't admit to post 251 and stand behind it. The facts are on record for all readers following this discussion to verify for themselves and make up their own minds. I will not retract anything in post 251.

If you want to stand by your statements in post #251 you will answer my three questions.

I'm not afraid to answer questions, you are the one that is ignoring my questions. Are you going to be a man and back up your post #251 by answering my questions?

Your dishonesty knows no bounds and is especially blatant in the following quote. Which I called on you to back up with facts or, admit your error and correct it. You failed miserably on that one too. #3Fan: Post #251 does exist and it says that those that teach their children commit hideous child abuse. 317

Nice trick leaving out the context. You're being dishonest by leaving out the context, the context was the teaching of a supernatural God.

Those false claims you made are well document on this thread. As is my repeated calls for you to back up your claim with valid facts or admit your errors and correct them.

I've made no errors. You call those that teach of a supernatural God to the kids child abusers. Post #251 is very clear.

You chose neither and instead chose to compound your problem. So be it. Post 326 was thorough and also my final post regarding your false claims in post 272, 276, 277 and 317 (all four reposted above) and your dishonesty in dealing with them.

No, don't run away before you answer by three questions, chicken. Here they are again in case you forgot. Are you going to shy away from them again?

Are you going to answer these questions or are you going to cluck? LOL

#3Fan: You made your comment and now you don't have the guts to retract it nor admit to it, which is amazing considering it's there for all to see. 328
#3Fan: Gee, that big long post and not one mention of the words "child abuse" except in your repost of #251. I'd say I've done a great job of making you run away from your ill-advised statement of post #251 (patting self on back). Do you often make wild accusations and then run away from them. In the same conversation even? LOL 329
Zon: I have reposted post 251 four times -- those reposts are at: 269, 309, 315 and 327. Also, in post 309 I told you that "I repost it proudly". I have made reference to post 251 in at least six separate post including numerous links to post 251. I never tried to hide from post 251. All that attention I have given to post 251 certainly isn't that of a person not admitting to having written post 251. 331
I've met your kind before. You guys think if you repeat a lie enough times, it will become truth.

You claimed in your post 328 (reposted above) that I don't, "have the guts to retract it nor admit to it", and in your post 329 (reposted above) you said, "you run away from your ill-advised statement of post #251". Clearly those two claims you made are refuted by the top portion of the paragraph in post 331 highlighted in blue above and in the bottom portion of the same paragraph continued below, highlighted in blue:

Heck I already told you I repost it proudly. No matter how dishonestly you claim that I won't admit to post 251 and stand behind it. The facts are on record for all readers following this discussion to verify for themselves and make up their own minds. I will not retract anything in post 251. Here' what I wrote in post 309:

Zon: I never pretended post 251 doesn't exist. I repost it proudly at the top of this post with a link back to the original. 309
* * *

Heck I already told you I repost it proudly. No matter how dishonestly you claim that I won't admit to post 251 and stand behind it. The facts are on record for all readers following this discussion to verify for themselves and make up their own minds. I will not retract anything in post 251. Here' what I wrote in post 309:
If you want to stand by your statements in post #251 you will answer my three questions.

I will not answer your questions. For to answer at your request would be to dignify you. Your dishonest behavior in our discussion has earned you plenty of scorn and no respect from me.

I'm not afraid to answer questions, you are the one that is ignoring my questions. Are you going to be a man and back up your post #251 by answering my questions?

You've avoided being honest like it's the plague. Your several erroneous claims and rationalizations in failed defense of those erroneous claims has disqualified you as an honorable person not worthy of response to your questions. If you want respect you must respect others. I respected you until you chose to rationalize in defense of your errors rather than correct them.

Zon: Your dishonesty knows no bounds and is especially blatant in the following quote. Which I called on you to back up with facts or, admit your error and correct it. You failed miserably on that one too. 331

#3Fan: Post #251 does exist and it says that those that teach their children commit hideous child abuse. 317

Nice trick leaving out the context. You're being dishonest by leaving out the context, the context was the teaching of a supernatural God.

You made the claim in post 317, I called on you to correct your error in my post 326 -- I wrote "Back up that claim with facts or admit your error and correct it. Perhaps you meant to say that but more probable is that your mysticism-polluted mind has simple failed you and one symptom that has shown through is your carelessness -- carelessness that has gotten way out of hand." -- then in your post 328 you chose to avoid correcting your error -- then in my post 331 I called on you again to correct your error and now you claim I took it out of context. That is awfully rich of you considering that at least a dozen times -- probably upwards of twenty -- you took my 251 post out of context.

Clearly the context of post 251 (reposted below) is the group. The group identified is: any person and all persons that partake in injecting one of the four non-realities/mysticism into other people's minds; the four non-realities/mysticism are (1) flying reindeer towing a fat man (Santa Clause), (2) Easter bunny, (3) tooth fairy and (4) supernatural God. Common-sense logic is that the group can be categorized into several subgroups, which I never did categorize any subgroups because I chose the context to be the whole group.

Flying reindeer towing a fat man in a sleigh, an Easter bunny, tooth fairy and supernatural God. Such mysticism injected into innocent little minds striving to accurately identify reality in their formative years. Often looking up to their parents to confirm whether or not they have accurately identified reality. Those young innocent children betrayed in the name of fun and love. What causes such hideous child abuse? Mysticism: the number-one disease of the conscious mind. 251

You claimed in your post 328 (reposted above) that I don't, "have the guts to retract it nor admit to it", and in your post 329 (reposted above) you said, "you run away from your ill-advised statement of post #251". Clearly those two claims you made are refuted by the top portion of the paragraph in post 331 highlighted in blue above and in the bottom portion of the same paragraph continued below, highlighted in blue:

All you are doing is reposting old posts and telling me to not believe my lying eyes. If you would actually stand by what post #251 you wouldn't be afraid to answer my questions.

Heck I already told you I repost it proudly.

If you're so proud of it why don't you answer my threee questions?

No matter how dishonestly you claim that I won't admit to post 251 and stand behind it. The facts are on record for all readers following this discussion to verify for themselves and make up their own minds. I will not retract anything in post 251.

Post #251 says that that those that teach their kids of a supernatural God, which includes Christians of course, are guilty of hideous child abuse.

Yes and so far you're 0-1. The one bystander that actually answered you was against you.

I will not answer your questions.

Checkmate. You can't answer my question because you know it'll force you to lie.

For to answer at your request would be to dignify you.

No, it would be to stand by your post. In post #251 you accused those that teach of a supernatural God of cild abuse. You haven't done so since because you know you were wrong and now you are trying to wiggle out of it. But there is no wiggling out you said what you said and what you said was that those that teach their kids of a supernatural God are guilty of child abuse.

Your dishonest behavior in our discussion has earned you plenty of scorn and no respect from me.

I don't want your respect and I happily accept your scorn. There's an old saying that one way to judge a person is to see who his enemies are. You're a lying atheist with no guts to back his words, I'm happy we are on the polar ends of the scale.

You've avoided being honest like it's the plague.

You're the one that can't ansdwer questions. Liars are afraid of questions.

Your several erroneous claims and rationalizations in failed defense of those erroneous claims has disqualified you as an honorable person not worthy of response to your questions.

Cluck...cluck...cluck... Run away from my questions, chicken. LOL

If you want respect you must respect others.

I don't want your respect, like I said, you are a liar that won't back up his words.

I respected you until you chose to rationalize in defense of your errors rather than correct them.

I'm glad we got that cleared up. LOL

Um, I'd say you're the one that's been careless. First you say that those that teach their kids of a supernatural God commit child abuse and then spen the rest of the thread running away from that statement, then you accuse me of saying you meant only Christians, nowhere did I say you meant only Christians. So you've already had to run away from two careless statements, but you're used to that aren't you, you're also running away from my questions.

...-- then in your post 328 you chose to avoid correcting your error -- then in my post 331 I called on you again to correct your error and now you claim I took it out of context. That is awfully rich of you considering that at least a dozen times -- probably upwards of twenty -- you took my 251 post out of context.

If I took it out of context then answer my questions so your context will be clear. You can't answer my questions because you know it will further prove you as a liar, as if there wasn't enough proof already.

Clearly the context of post 251 (reposted below) is the group. The group identified is: any person and all persons that partake in injecting one of the four non-realities/mysticism into other people's minds; the four non-realities/mysticism are (1) flying reindeer towing a fat man (Santa Clause), (2) Easter bunny, (3) tooth fairy and (4) supernatural God. Common-sense logic is that the group can be categorized into several subgroups, which I never did categorize any subgroups because I chose the context to be the whole group.

That answer my simple questions to clarify (as if post #251 wasn't clear enough).

1. Do you think Christians practice mysticism?
2. Do you think that those that teach mysticism to their kids commit child abuse?
3. Do you think that Christians who teach their kids of a supernatural God commit child abuse?

Be a man and stand by your statement, or else it's checkmate again, for the twentieth time.

Flying reindeer towing a fat man in a sleigh, an Easter bunny, tooth fairy and supernatural God. Such mysticism injected into innocent little minds striving to accurately identify reality in their formative years. Often looking up to their parents to confirm whether or not they have accurately identified reality. Those young innocent children betrayed in the name of fun and love. What causes such hideous child abuse? Mysticism: the number-one disease of the conscious mind. 251

In this battle beteen a Christian and an atheist, it's clear who is the one that won't back up his words. Post #251 clearly says that those that teach their kids of a supernatural God commit "hideous child abuse". You've spent the last half of this thread telling everyone not to believe their lying eyes. The morality of atheism is taking a hammering on this thread.

All you are doing is reposting old posts and telling me to not believe my lying eyes. If you would actually stand by what post #251 you wouldn't be afraid to answer my questions.

I stand firmly behind post 251. That's why I keep posting it. How silly of you to proclaim from on high (or low, depending on perspective) that if I don't cater to you and your questions I don't stand behind post 251. Further more, afraid of you? HA!! You're a documented pipsqueak. And deserve nothing but scorn. Like the judge, jury and executioner at a Medieval Inquisition.

Zon: I will not answer your questions. 333

Checkmate. You can't answer my question because you know it'll force you to lie.

I don't lie, not even to a person like you that is deserving of nothing but scorn. Which is nothing compared to many people (identified in post 251) who in the name of fun and love routinely lie to their own children -- flying reindeer towing Santa Clause being the most repeated lie, followed by Easter bunny and tooth fairy. See what I mean about you being like the judge, jury and executioner at a Star Chamber Inquisition; you have great desire to force me to lie. What happens if I continue to stand behind post 251, are you going to burn me at the stake.

Quick lesson on what is and what isn't a lie. Person A asks person B what day of the week it is. Person B responds, "it's Tuesday". Unbeknownst to person B it is actually Wednesday. Person B made an error not a lie. Example 2: Person C asks person D what day of the week it is. Person D, knowing it's actually Wednesday responds, "it's Tuesday". Person D told a lie.

Why the above explanation? To clarify that for the vast majority of parents and people that inject the non-reality/mysticism supernatural God concept into children's minds, they're not telling a lie, For they actually believe the concept to be valid; they would be Person B in the above example. On the other hand, parents that inject the non-realities/mysticism of the other three -- flying reindeer towing (Santa Clause), Easter bunny, tooth fairy -- are telling a lie. For they do know that none of those three exist in reality; they would be person D in the above example.

You're a lying atheist with no guts to back his words, I'm happy we are on the polar ends of the scale.

I'm not an atheist due to a technical concern. It's way over your head so I won't bother trying to explain. For discussion purposes I'll accept the atheist label. I stand by words each time I repost post 251. I further backed post 251 with post 327. You just can't stand it that I'm not bowing before you: the judge, jury and executioner at your "Medieval Inquisition".

I don't want your respect, like I said, you are a liar that won't back up his words.

I repeat, I stand by words each time I repost post 251. I further backed post 251 with post 327.

then you accuse me of saying you meant only Christians, nowhere did I say you meant only Christians.

I told you in post 331, regarding your false claims: "Post 326 was thorough and also my final post regarding your false claims in post 272, 276, 277 and 317 (all four reposted above) and your dishonesty in dealing with them." In post 326 I particular like the analogy of you and the Washington Post writer.

If I took it out of context then answer my questions so your context will be clear. You can't answer my questions because you know it will further prove you as a liar, as if there wasn't enough proof already.

The context is clear without answering your questions, you admit that below. See below.

Zon: Clearly the context of post 251 (reposted below) is the group. The group identified is: any person and all persons that partake in injecting one of the four non-realities/mysticism into other people's minds; the four non-realities/mysticism are (1) flying reindeer towing a fat man (Santa Clause), (2) Easter bunny, (3) tooth fairy and (4) supernatural God. Common-sense logic is that the group can be categorized into several subgroups, which I never did categorize any subgroups because I chose the context to be the whole group. 333

That answer my simple questions to clarify (as if post #251 wasn't clear enough).

You admit that post 251 is clear enough. You've known that all along. Thus there's no need to answer your questions. Which is precisely why I chose not to. That I wouldn't dignify you by answering your questions is irrelevant and at best secondary. It's obvious that you're on a witch hunt and that you've found your victim (a victim that never hid and always stood in plain "view") and have proceeded to be judge, jury and executioner of your "Medieval Inquisition".

In this battle beteen a Christian and an atheist, it's clear who is the one that won't back up his words. Post #251 clearly says that those that teach their kids of a supernatural God commit "hideous child abuse". You've spent the last half of this thread telling everyone not to believe their lying eyes. The morality of atheism is taking a hammering on this thread.

I backed post 251 with post 327. BTW, this thread is not 500 posts in length (not even close to it) and your "Medieval Inquisition" didn't start until after I posted post 251. Your atheist issue is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. There's many people that aren't atheists and many that are atheists that inject into the innocent and formative young minds of little children the three non-realities/mysticism -- flying reindeer towing (Santa Clause), Easter bunny and tooth fairy. People that do that are intentionally lying to young children with the intent to deceive the child. As you said, "as if post #251 wasn't clear enough". Many people rationalize that the deception is good because it's done in the name of fun and love. They throw honest principle out the window. For an in-depth treatment see post 327.

The three questions deal directly with post #251. You won't answer my questions because you're trying to portray yourself as not saying that Christians are mystics.

Further more, afraid of you?

You're getting careless again. I said you're afraid to answer my questions.

You forgot one, the teaching of a supernatural God. You're getting careless again.

See what I mean about you being like the judge, jury and executioner at a Star Chamber Inquisition; you have great desire to force me to lie. What happens if I continue to stand behind post 251, are you going to burn me at the stake.

You're burning yourself at the stake by not standing by your atheist philosophy. I've caught you in an inconsistency. You atheists are always accusing Christians of inconsistancies, but now you can't back up your words in post #251 by answering my questions.

So are you saying that you made an error when you said that those that teach of a supernatural God practice mysticism?

Error or not, are they committing child abuse? In post #251, you said they were.

For they do know that none of those three exist in reality; they would be person D in the above example.

So the only ones that qualifies for your child abuse charge are the God worshippers who also do the other three. Most Christians do the other three along with their teachings of a supernatural God, so are you going to be consistant and say they they are committing child abuse like you said in post #251?

I'm not an atheist due to a technical concern. It's way over your head so I won't bother trying to explain.

You put all this importance on the teaching of Santa Claus and you want to say something is over my head? LOL

For discussion purposes I'll accept the atheist label. I stand by words each time I repost post 251. I further backed post 251 with post 327. You just can't stand it that I'm not bowing before you: the judge, jury and executioner at your "Medieval Inquisition".

I'm testing you for consistancy. You fail.

I repeat, I stand by words each time I repost post 251. I further backed post 251 with post 327.

Then answer my questions. Those that don't have faith in their philosophy are afraid of questions.

I told you in post 331, regarding your false claims: "Post 326 was thorough and also my final post regarding your false claims in post 272, 276, 277 and 317 (all four reposted above) and your dishonesty in dealing with them." In post 326 I particular like the analogy of you and the Washington Post writer.

What the Washington post writer said was a lie though, because not all Dems were stalling. All Christians believe in a supernatural God.

The context is clear without answering your questions, you admit that below. See below.

Yep you clearly said that those that teach of a supernatural God are guilty of child abuse. Therefore you meant all Christians are guilty of child abuse. Therefore I was right in attacking the atheist governments policy of genocide in the 20th century. It is a relevent topic.

You admit that post 251 is clear enough.

Yep and you said that Christians are guilty of child abuse.

You've known that all along. Thus there's no need to answer your questions. Which is precisely why I chose not to. That I wouldn't dignify you by answering your questions is irrelevant and at best secondary. It's obvious that you're on a witch hunt and that you've found your victim (a victim that never hid and always stood in plain "view") and have proceeded to be judge, jury and executioner of your "Medieval Inquisition".

Atheist governments committed the worst atrocities of the 20th century.

I backed post 251 with post 327. BTW, this thread is not 500 posts in length (not even close to it) and your "Medieval Inquisition" didn't start until after I posted post 251. Your atheist issue is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. There's many people that aren't atheists and many that are atheists that inject into the innocent and formative young minds of little children the three non-realities/mysticism -- flying reindeer towing (Santa Clause), Easter bunny and tooth fairy. People that do that are intentionally lying to young children with the intent to deceive the child. As you said, "as if post #251 wasn't clear enough". Many people rationalize that the deception is good because it's done in the name of fun and love. They throw honest principle out the window. For an in-depth treatment see post 327.

Are you going to press the government to press charges against Christians for their "hideous child abuse" that you accused them of in post #251?

You won't answer my questions because you're trying to portray yourself as not saying that Christians are mystics.

I have told you numerous times why I don't answer your questions. You proclaim to know better than I why I don't answer your questions. You're a hoot!

Zon: I don't lie, not even to a person like you that is deserving of nothing but scorn. Which is nothing compared to many people (identified in post 251) who in the name of fun and love routinely lie to their own children -- flying reindeer towing Santa Clause being the most repeated lie, followed by Easter bunny and tooth fairy. 335

You forgot one, the teaching of a supernatural God. You're getting careless again.

A person would only be telling a lie only when they know what they are saying isn't true. Since I explained in that same post (335) the difference between a lie and an error either it is you once again being careless, probably due to your mysticism-polluted mind which has simple failed you and one symptom that has shown through is your carelessness -- carelessness that has gotten way out of hand. If not that, it appears that you're saying that you know a supernatural God doesn't exists but "teach" it regardless of knowing the truth. I mean, how else do you explain you saying "You forgot one, the teaching of a supernatural God." because for the vast majority of people (99.9%) when they "teach" the supernatural God concept they don't know that a supernatural God doesn't exist -- thus they're not lying. To lie is to say something that the speaker knows to be false.

You're burning yourself at the stake by not standing by your atheist philosophy. I've caught you in an inconsistency. You atheists are always accusing Christians of inconsistancies, but now you can't back up your words in post #251 by answering my questions.

I'm burning up with laughter. And you know what, it feels damn good. You've caught your own Jupiter-sized ego. I've been consistent and have stood by post 251, never wavering, never retracting anything and never editing it as can be seen by my repeated reposting of post 251. Also, I backed up post 251 in post 327. I told you why I don't answer your questions. Your demand for answers is your questions is you playing judge, jury and executioner at your "Medieval Inquisition".

Zon: Quick lesson on what is and what isn't a lie. Person A asks person B what day of the week it is. Person B responds, "it's Tuesday". Unbeknownst to person B it is actually Wednesday. Person B made an error not a lie. 335
So are you saying that you made an error when you said that those that teach of a supernatural God practice mysticism?

Isn't that convenient of you to omit a portion of the lesson to suit your agenda. Here's the complete lesson as it was posted in post 335: The part you omitted to suit your dishonest agenda is highlighted in red

Zon: Quick lesson on what is and what isn't a lie. Person A asks person B what day of the week it is. Person B responds, "it's Tuesday". Unbeknownst to person B it is actually Wednesday. Person B made an error not a lie. Example 2: Person C asks person D what day of the week it is. Person D, knowing it's actually Wednesday responds, "it's Tuesday". Person D told a lie. 335

Your dishonesty know no bounds. I suppose you probably think some supernatural God smiles upon that.

Zon: Why the above explanation? To clarify that for the vast majority of parents and people that inject the non-reality/mysticism supernatural God concept into children's minds, they're not telling a lie, For they actually believe the concept to be valid... 335
Error or not, are they committing child abuse? In post #251, you said they were.

I stand behind post 251 and backed it up with post 327, which I stand behind as well.

Here's the middle part of the paragraph from post 335 you omitted and didn't respond to: " they would be Person B in the above example. On the other hand, parents that inject the non-realities/mysticism of the other three -- flying reindeer towing (Santa Clause), Easter bunny, tooth fairy -- are telling a lie." 335

Here you pick up at the end of the paragraph:

Zon: For they do know that none of those three exist in reality; they would be person D in the above example.335

You've really lost it. Why? Because first you omit the portion of the lesson that included "Example 2" with Person C and Person D (highlighted in red, eight paragraphs above) to suit your dishonest agenda. Then in my explanation that immediately followed the lesson -- as I said in post 335 "Why the above explanation?" -- you have included the explanation reference to Person D in the lesson I gave. In other words, you omitted a critical part of the lesson (Example2) I gave and then in the explanation I gave for the lesson, you quote a section of my explanation (Person D that refers back to Person D in Example 2 (which you omitted)). You really are a hoot! Tripping all over yourself and all. Do you do birthday parties?

Zon: For they do know that none of those three exist in reality; they would be person D in the above example.335

So the only ones that qualifies for your child abuse charge are the God worshippers who also do the other three. Most Christians do the other three along with their teachings of a supernatural God, so are you going to be consistant and say they they are committing child abuse like you said in post #251?
"So the only ones that qualifies for your child abuse charge are the God worshippers who also do the other three."

I already explained in post 333 and reposted it in post 335. You're feigning. I simple can't believe you're that in competent. Here it is again: (Key words highlighted in red identify the people that qualify -- emphasis in bold and extreme emphasis underlined.)

Zon: Clearly the context of post 251 (reposted below) is the group. The group identified is: any person and all persons that partake in injecting one of the four non-realities/mysticism into other people's minds; the four non-realities/mysticism are (1) flying reindeer towing a fat man (Santa Clause), (2) Easter bunny, (3) tooth fairy and (4) supernatural God. Common-sense logic is that the group can be categorized into several subgroups, which I never did categorize any subgroups because I chose the context to be the whole group. 333, 335

Zon: I'm not an atheist due to a technical concern. It's way over your head so I won't bother trying to explain. 335

You put all this importance on the teaching of Santa Claus and you want to say something is over my head? LOL

Most of what I've been doing is over your head. Frankly, I'm still somewhat amazed that you haven't caught on yet. Cary on.

Zon: You just can't stand it that I'm not bowing before you: the judge, jury and executioner at your "Medieval Inquisition". 335

Zon: I repeat, I stand by words each time I repost post 251. I further backed post 251 with post 327. 335

Then answer my questions. Those that don't have faith in their philosophy are afraid of questions.

Your questions don't scare me in the least. It sure is fun watching you perform though.

Zon: In post 326 I particular like the analogy of you and the Washington Post writer. 335

What the Washington post writer said was a lie though, because not all Dems were stalling. All Christians believe in a supernatural God.

Your mischaracterization of the Washington Post Writer analogy to you is duly noted. In fact, I like the analogy so much I'll repost it here: (The reader that wants the context as it was originally presented can read it at post 326)

"I put forth an analogy. Two weeks ago a Washington Post reporter created a mind-spun fabrication. He wrote that in a speech President Bush said that it was Senate Democrats that were stalling Homeland Security. That is, the Washington Post writer claimed that President Bush's comment was meant/directed at the Senate Democrats sub-group. When in fact President Bush said that it was the Senators (the whole group identified) that were stalling Homeland Security.
"Hundreds of Freepers jumped on that mind-spun fabrication that the Washington Post reporter had created. A few other news sources had articles in their printed papers and online articles that claimed the same as the Washington Post article.
"Several articles that weren't liberal-biased were posted on FreeRepublic. In those articles the writers pointed out the mind-spun fabrication in the Washington Post article and other articles that claimed the same.
"It was clear to virtually every Freeper who read one or more of those non-liberal-biased articles that at best it was an error and at worst, intentional deception via mind-spun fabrication. Considering the liberal bias in the news outlets that reported the mind-spun fabrication as truth, the vast majority of Freepers took the position that it was a deliberate deception being foisted on the readers of those news outlets.
"Again, the Washington Post writer's mind-spun fabrication that he created was that President Bush meant/directed his comment at the Senate Democrat sub-group -- when in fact, President Bush meant/directed his comment at the Senate which is inclusive of all Senators." 326
Atheist governments committed the worst atrocities of the 20th century

"In one thirty-year period, Christian religious wars wiped out one-third the population of Europe. "275 -- andy_card. There's no valid reason for a person, group of persons or government to initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person.

Zon: Your atheist issue is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. There's many people that aren't atheists and many that are atheists that inject into the innocent and formative young minds of little children the three non-realities/mysticism -- flying reindeer towing (Santa Clause), Easter bunny and tooth fairy. People that do that are intentionally lying to young children with the intent to deceive the child. As you said, "as if post #251 wasn't clear enough". Many people rationalize that the deception is good because it's done in the name of fun and love. They throw honest principle out the window. For an in-depth treatment see post 327. 335

Are you going to press the government to press charges against Christians for their "hideous child abuse" that you accused them of in post #251?

No.

Finally, after more than a dozen post to you I have my first question for you: Do you think it is wrong for an adult to inject one or more of the three lies/non-realities/mysticism -- flying reindeer towing Santa Clause, Easter bunny, tooth fairy -- into a young child's mind knowing that the adult's intent is to deceive the child into believing that a specific lie/non-reality/mysticism exists when in fact it doesn't exist?

I have told you numerous times why I don't answer your questions. You proclaim to know better than I why I don't answer your questions. You're a hoot!

Of course I know. You're too afraid to stand by your words.

A person would only be telling a lie only when they know what they are saying isn't true. Since I explained in that same post (335) the difference between a lie and an error either it is you once again being careless, probably due to your mysticism-polluted mind which has simple failed you and one symptom that has shown through is your carelessness -- carelessness that has gotten way out of hand. If not that, it appears that you're saying that you know a supernatural God doesn't exists but "teach" it regardless of knowing the truth. I mean, how else do you explain you saying "You forgot one, the teaching of a supernatural God." because for the vast majority of people (99.9%) when they "teach" the supernatural God concept they don't know that a supernatural God doesn't exist -- thus they're not lying. To lie is to say something that the speaker knows to be false.

God is real and Christians believe in him.

Yes or no will do. I don't have the power to throw you in a dungeon, don't worry.

I simply asked you a question.

Your dishonesty know no bounds. I suppose you probably think some supernatural God smiles upon that.

You're the one being dishonest by not repeating that you think God woshippers commit child abuse when they teach their kids about God.

I stand behind post 251 and backed it up with post 327, which I stand behind as well.

I'll take that as a "yes".

Here you pick up at the end of the paragraph:

I'm deleting half your posts because all your doing is cutting and pasting from previous posts. You don't have the intelligence to expand on your thoughts.

You've really lost it. Why? Because first you omit the portion of the lesson that included "Example 2"

I know what a liar is and you are one. No need to for me to repost your thread filler.

You really are a hoot! Tripping all over yourself and all. Do you do birthday parties?

I'm not the one running from my own statements. You are running from yours.

I already explained in post 333 and reposted it in post 335. You're feigning. I simple can't believe you're that in competent.

Incompetent is one word.

Most of what I've been doing is over your head. Frankly, I'm still somewhat amazed that you haven't caught on yet. Cary on.

I'm amazed that you're spending all this energy running away from one post. Anyone who reads this needs to to a poster search. Search my name and search Zon's. You'll see that I have been carrying on discussions on several threads. You'll see that Zon has neen occupied with this thread for the last three days! This is hilarious. I have become the focal point of his life. It takes me 5 minutes to respond on this thread. With all his references and cut and pastes, he's spending hours a day on this. By all means you carry on, Zon. I enjoy keeping atheists tied up in this kind of pettiness. It draws them away from supporting their leaders and that may keep a genocide from happening. LOL

Your questions don't scare me in the least. It sure is fun watching you perform though.

It must be. It's been your only activity on FR for the last few days. LOL

Your mischaracterization of the Washington Post Writer analogy to you is duly noted.

Duly noted? You mean you're putting on my permanent record?! Please no!! /sarcasm LOL

There's no valid reason for a person, group of persons or government to initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person.

Atheists have a habit of doing just that though.

No.

I'm amazed that you didn't see what I just did. I repeated that you accused Christians of child abuse and you didn't refute it. Are you getting tired? I thought we was going to get to go through all that stuff we went through earlier. I got to keep you occupied for a few more days. tehehehe

Finally, after more than a dozen post to you I have my first question for you:...

Wow, a real question on topic instead of these idiotic semantical games you've been playing for half this thread.

Do you think it is wrong for an adult to inject one or more of the three lies/non-realities/mysticism -- flying reindeer towing Santa Clause, Easter bunny, tooth fairy -- into a young child's mind knowing that the adult's intent is to deceive the child into believing that a specific lie/non-reality/mysticism exists when in fact it doesn't exist?

Of course not. Kids find out that those three examples don't exist in due time and it makes a child actually feel more grown up when he/she recognizes that fact. God is more real than rain though so you can't compare those three with Christianity.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.