• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Fundamentalist Ufology: 'Aliens' Are Demons

A

Anonymous

Guest
As the product of a pretty literalist ( the Bible is God's facts with no room for ambiguity) Christian fundamentalist background, I never heard reports of UFO sightings scoffed at. Far from it. They were and are harbingers of the end time popularized in the Left Behind series of apocalyptic thrillers.

I never was much of a believer in the doctrines preached at me throughout my childhood although some of the more bizarre bigoted assertions ( for example, Roman Catholics are not Christians and even the biblical so called " proofs" of the inferiority of some folks and the superiority of others ) still stick in my mind. One that won't leave is the oft repeated " Isn't it strange how there are always UFO reports when there's trouble in the Holy Land?", as my family called it.

Nowadays when I peruse the wares of the local Christian bookstore, I see a fair number of books with titles like UFOS End-time Delusion and Who The Aliens REally Are & What They Really Want. I'm wondering if anyone else cares to comment on this particular take on UFOs and their occupants.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm - interesting. Are abductions, greys, UFOs and the like being shown as evidence of Satanic/demonic influence?
 
fundy alien take

How did you guess? I'd like to add that, given their beliefs, fundies are capable of critical thought, ex. after Falwell and Robertson's outbreak of fingerpointing re the September '01 attacks, my devout mother announced that she would no longer watch any of their tv broadcasts because'" every time they open their mouths both feet get inserted."

I perused one book whose author did not question the validity of Whitley Strieber, Betty Andreasson and others, only their conclusions or in WS' case non- conclusion. They were being plagued by demons who in the guise of ETs or visitors had a satanic agenda of their own.
Of course, the plethora of reports wasn't a sign of extraordinary popular delusion but more evidence that the rapture was imminent.
 
Isn't the fundamentalist take on UFO's/aliens as demonic just their spin on the grander theory that "they have been here for a very long time", and that we happen to share our little slot of time/space with these intelligences who appear then in sky-ships or zeppelins and now in saucers or black triangles?
It's kind of like von Daniken got it backwards - instead of the gods being aliens, the "aliens" are the gods.
 
Some years ago, my own mother (an Evangelical Baptist) gave me a booklet from some fundamentalist organisation, which ranted on about aliens and UFOs being demons, the work of the devil, etc.
I was amazed at how anti-intellectual it was, and even more amazed that my mother swallowed it completely.
 
As a keen ufologist I have spoken to quite a number of evangelical Christians about this matter. Some give a neutral opinion, stating that the Bible doesn't say anything about aliens. Others are adamant that UFOs and alien entities are manifestations of Satan's power.

I met one interesting chap (not sure if he was a Christian) who believed that aliens were visiting us to observe events here, because ours is the only planet in the universe on which the inhabitants have rebelled against God, and that our "sin problem" is unique and therefore fascinating to them.
The idea of intelligent aliens is a major problem for Christianity in any event imho. Why? Because one would have to ask whether Jesus died for the aliens' sins as well as ours. Are aliens capable of redemption? Will any go to heaven? I have always believed that the absolute proof of intelligent extraterrestrials would shake Christianity to its very foundations. However, religions like Islam and Buddhism could probably accommodate such a discovery without too much trouble.

Big Bill Robinson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't actually know (knowingly...) any christian fundamentalists (they tend to avoid my local :) ), but those christians that I have had UFO discussions with seem to be evenly distributed between 'angels', 'demons', and 'something unworldly that will be revealed when we/they are ready'.

Oh, and 'Don't know'. Which shows that at least some of them have some sense....:)
 
Big Bill Robins said:
As a keen ufologist I have spoken to quite a number of evangelical Christians about this matter. Some give a neutral opinion, stating that the Bible doesn't say anything about aliens. Others are adamant that UFOs and alien entities are manifestations of Satan's power.
Click to expand...

Any of them named Nathaniel...?
 
grey fundamentalism

Big Bill's friend's comment about Earth as a planet in rebellion against the Big Guy sounds like C.S. Lewis' description of Earth in Out Of The Silent Planet, also the Lewis- derivative A Wrinkle In Time. The only non - apocalyptic explanation of UFOs that I heard from truebelievers was the old demon rum hypothesis, or DRH.

Islam and Buddhism can accomodate the notion of Others more
easily because their roster of non- human entities is much more
diverse than that of the average Protestant fundy, who generally
allows for angels, although grudgingly, and demons, whose existence they embrace wholeheartedly. After all, rock music, modern architecture and compact cars are all demonically inspired.
 
Many a true word...

The Vatican (of all people) are struggling to build an observatory on a sacred Native American Mountain in Arizona...

wait for it...

so they can be prepared to convert extraterrestrials to Catholicism!!!

Here is one site (of several) that tells the story:

http://users.skynet.be/kola/mtgrah.htm

Our local Uni was at one time involved in this project, but have since withdrawn their support.

TVgeek
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think it matters what people call them. To quote Clive Barker's Pinhead in Hellraiser, "Angels to some, demons to others." And what is a demon but a fallen angel? And what exactly is an alien? A non-human? What about other dimensions. Can you have a ultra-dimensional demonic alien? Who cares? I don't get the point of arguing about terminology, it's all just syntax in the end.

As far as the Bible goes, if it was in its original form then I might take notice of it, but as it was completely rewritten according to the repressed and misguided concepts of the very human Church, then as it stands it's pretty worthless. At least I hope it is. Last night I ate seafood whilst wearing clothing of mixed fibres, and if the Bible is to be believed, I will burn in hell for these two appalling sins.
 
Desperado said:
Last night I ate seafood whilst wearing clothing of mixed fibres, and if the Bible is to be believed, I will burn in hell for these two appalling sins.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Those rules apply only if you're Jewish, and even then, there was no Jewish conception of hell at the time it was written down. In the Old Testament, punishment and reward were to be meted out by the Big Guy while one was alive, there wasn't much to be said about the world to come. The more advanced concept of delayed gratification (which probably only came about when people began to notice how deeply unfair life is), and hence the need for heaven and hell, came later.

So, if you are an Israelite, you can look forward to God giving you a damn good smiting. Otherwise, eat and wear on!
 
JamesM - you may be right, and I'm no expert in this area, but I'm not sure the "only Jewish" bit is true (and I don't have a Bible to hand to check). I know that you're right that this is part of Jewish dictate, but I'm sure that in the Bible Christians are warned against it, I think at the same point as they are told of the evils of homosexuality. But then again, don't Jews believe there is no salvation for the non-Jewish anyway? :p
 
Hmm. The Old and New Testaments are completely irreconcilable anyway. They contain two entirely different religions stapled together.
 
Desperado said:
Don't Jews believe there is no salvation for the non-Jewish anyway? :p
Click to expand...

No, it's a pretty long-established Jewish tradition that the righteous of all nations have a stake in the world to come (whatever that entails - this is not an area that Jewish thought is particularly interested in). You can find some statements to the contrary, but these appear to be more rooted in the idea that non-Jews were considered to be behaving in a ghastly manner, rather than that they were gentiles per se. Non-Jews are expected only to abide by the Noachide principles, of which there are a mere seven (listed in Genesis - maybe, I can't remember), rather than the Torah.

While you can read of several accounts of enthusiastic Jewish evangelism (in Joshua, for instance), the wave of forced conversions after the succesful Maccabee revolt against the Hasmoneans backfired spectacularly, as it produced such disasters for the Jewish nation as King Herod. Evangelism, like polygamy, was eventually banned as being more trouble than it was worth.

Oh dear, I've rather hijacked this thread, haven't I? To make amends: just after Christmas, I saw a brief bit of a xtian programme on one of the digital satellite religious channels that was all about the demon/UFO crossover. Rather than Communion, however, it had the great good taste to use John Keel's "The Mothman Prophecies" as its main source. It also slowly faded an illustration of a stereotypical Grey into that of a demon - proof, if any were needed, that they are one and the same thing!
 
Hmm. The Old and New Testaments are completely irreconcilable anyway. They contain two entirely different religions stapled together.
Click to expand...

So it may seem to the casual reader (such casual reading usually produces a Fundamentalist - Atheist or Christian, makes no difference, both are quite boorish and ignorant of the facts in a desperate attempt to underpin their nice little worldview).

However, the authors of the so-called "New Testament" were essentially members of a Jewish sect. The Revelation of John is very similar in style and content to Jewish apocalyptic writings of its time, and to its writer that's most likely what it was. History has labelled it and the rest of the "New Testament" as "Christian".

Whereas the "Old Testament" could be said to "contain" a religion (Leviticus, Deutronomy in particular), the same cannot be said for the "New Testament". It essentially contains correspondences (mainly written by a disaffected rabbi), four biographies, and an apocalyptic piece. They hardly contain "a religion" - a label better ascribed to the contents of "The Shepherd of Hermas". They do give documentary accounts of the religious practices of the Jewish sect which we call "Christians" - but even these are not unitary and on serious reading it is evident that these early "churches" varied in their practice of religion to the extent that it can be said that Christianity was/is not a religion but rather an ontology on which the Christian religions (some of them irreconcilable, never mind the "OT" and "NT"!) base their practices - some of them remaining distinctly "OT" (e.g., Ebionites).
 
Fundamental alien

The two testaments aren't irreconcilable although there's a curious selectivity about Leviticus among the extreme Christian fundamentalists, particularly hatemongers like the Rev. Fred Phelps, who turned up at Matthew Sheppard's funeral with his gang who carried signs bearing slogans like " God hates fags."

However when you ask about locust eating and the other dietary proscriptions in Leviticus the fundies say " Oh that's for the Jews and doesn't pertain to us."

I wondered what anyone had to say about Betty Andreasson, a devout abductee whose profusely self - illustrated experiences were chronicled by Raymond Fowler in at least three books. ( Her
draftmanship improves in the later work.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still think there are major points in the NT that simply do not tie in with what is said in the OT. God having a son, for example. The idea that there was only one God. Why does God suddenly need a messenger when he was previously able to appear himself? There are enough elements of Jewish theology (names etc.) scattered about the NT to hide the differences, but what is taught in the NT and has served as the basis for Christianity is not the same as what is in the OT.
 
Taking a slightly different angle -- although the OT/NT stuff is very interesting! *S*...

I know it has been noted, any number of times, that the abduction experience and demonic visitation experiences of earlier times have any number of similarities (and yes, differences). In some ways, it is a matter of interpretation...someone awakens and sees some physically strange, somewhat menacing, inexplicable forms gathered about them in the dark... if that someone lived hundreds of years ago or more, what came to mind might well have been angels, or demons, or spirits of some kind, while today, the thought of "aliens" is not all that unlikely.


Beyond that... it has also been noted that there is a strange evolution in the perceived "technology" witnessed in the UFO field, leading to questions about what is 'actually' out there and what the witness BELIEVES is out there. Early accounts discussed airships, then almost Flash Gordon-esque rockets, then rather LEM-like metallic saucers and spacemen, and more recently, ships of light with more ambigious "greys". I have often wondered -- and again, I recognize this is not original, but has been much-discussed -- if whatever is behind the UFO phenomenon doesn't somehow "tap" the witness's mind for "raw materials"... if witnesses don't see something that they can understand, as opposed to "what is there". In keeping with this, someone very much in tune with demons might well have a more "demonic" experience... and perhaps not directly link it with UFOs at all...?

Shadow
 
I sometime play with the notion that abductees and witnesses to spectacular fly - bys, etc. don't so much see what they " know" as they experience something so mind boggling that the mind has to reduce it to recognizable pop sci-fi imagery in order to preserve their sanity. Admittedly this is romantic not scientific.
 
Doesn't the existence of UFOs require a certain degree of faith?
 
That depends on what you think UFOs are - spaceships, inter-dimensional beings, earthlights, etc.. The theories that tend to say that 'UFOs are not of this Earth' can seem like a faith when one takes into account what contactees (past and present) have said.
 
Of course it would be a mistake to ignore the inherent religiosity of much of the " literature", particularly the almost evangelical WS. Although he seems to annoy many, Strieber should if nothing else get a nod for being one of the best writers to ever produce accounts of personal high strangeness.

But there's a Catch-22 in the question..and the quest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still think there are major points in the NT that simply do not tie in with what is said in the OT. God having a son, for example.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "God having a son". I reckon that the abstract concept in your mind which this phrase conveys is miles from how the first Christians would have perceived the Sonship of Christ. Their concept of Christ as Son very much relied on their concept of Christ as the Logos, the Word - an Old Testament idea. I fear you may be reading (if indeed you are) the "NT" and "OT" as do many Fundamentalists - as 19th century books of religious instruction.

The Ancient Near Easterns did not see words as merely being sounds or writing; they were seen as having an independent existence and power.
Throughout the Old Testament and in the "Apocryphal" Jewish Wisdom literature, the independence and power of God's spoken word is emphasized (Ps. 33:6, 107:20; Is. 55:11; Jer. 23:29; 2 Esd. 6:38; Wisdom 9:1). From these writings it can be seen that the Jews of these times understood God's Word to possess powers and substance.
In their ontology, however, a word did not need to be uttered or written to be alive, they were articulate units of thought, "capable of intelligible utterance" as one scholar wrote.

Far from the "O.T." being irreconcilable with the idea of Christ as Son of God, this idea springs from the "O.T." itself. This "Wisdom Christology" engendered the concept of hypostasis: "a quasi-personification of attributes proper to a deity, occupying an intermediate position between personalities and abstract beings". And this wasn't a strictly Jewish concept. We have:

> The Egyptian Hu and Sia, the creative word and understanding of Re-Atum
> Ma'at, also Egyptian, who personified right order in nature and society, and was a creation of Re
> Mesaru and Kettu, who were Akkadian hypostases seen as attributes of the sun-god, or gifts from him, or as independent deities
> the divine word, proceeding via breath and wind in Sumerian and Akkadian writings

James D. G. Dunn puts it in a nutshell:

"What pre-Christian Judaism said of Wisdom and Philo also of the Logos, Paul and the others say of Jesus. The role that Proverbs, ben Sira, etc. ascribe to Wisdom, these earliest Christians ascribe to Jesus."

I could go on, and probably haven't made myself very clear - however I'll conclude on the reiteration that if one is to read biblical texts critically, one should have some idea of the culture and ontological background of the writers and readers of the texts.
 
hospitaller said:
I could go on, and probably haven't made myself very clear - however I'll conclude on the reiteration that if one is to read biblical texts critically, one should have some idea of the culture and ontological background of the writers and readers of the texts.
Click to expand...

Quite.

Although, shouldn't the "word of God" transgress a cultural change in the understanding of literature and language? If one BELIEVES in the bible, fundamentally, then it's meaning must be static. Or does God change his opinion as culture changes?

Understanding the bible, within the context of it's original "culture and ontological background" is a foreign language to a believer. It is the word of God - the word of God is constant. It always has been and always will be. An understanding of the bible (and particlularly the interaction of OT and NT) must take into account the particular culture of the time of interpretation - and not just the culture of when it was written.

I presume that James D G Dunn was writing about the bible as an historical document. Which is a totally different exercise from looking at the bible as a document of faith.

The two are now irreconcilable - sad, but true.

It is only in this context that we can begin to understand the Christian reactions to UFO activity. It fits into the current society's language. To many people, rather than have their faith tested, it is easier to alter their perception of the religion and then to fit the blocks of their life into the religion. Whether OT or NT, Christianity cannot be seen as a static block which has a static meaning.

If the word of God is translated into human form - it loses its meaning. Surely a contradiction of faith.
 
Understanding the bible, within the context of it's original "culture and ontological background" is a foreign language to a believer.
Click to expand...

I would have to protest that understanding the bible within the context of it's original culture and ontological background is almost essential for the modern "believer".

I'm afraid you've fallen into the trap of the Fundamentalists in that the abstract concept of "God's word" you apply to the bible is one that is more Islamic than Jewish or Christian when you assume that...

If one BELIEVES in the bible, fundamentally, then it's meaning must be static. Or does God change his opinion as culture changes?
Click to expand...

The bible is a collection of writings from different ages and cultures which put forward and show the development of a particular worldview.
If God changed his opinion, he wouldn't be God! The biblical writings are the words of men seeking to express the concept of their God, and very often they are lost for words (just look at the language Ezekiel uses to describe his visionary experiences - there are patently no words for what he experienced!) In Islam meanwhile (far as I can recall) Arabic is seen as a sacred eternal tongue created specifically for the delivery of the Holy Quran.

Of course the meaning of the Bible is static. Those who try to change its meaning to suit our culture and times invariably end up (intentionally or otherwise) starting some cult or other. Any biblical scholar will tell you that in order to gauge the meaning of a text you must interpret it as the writer meant it. Yet the underlying principles are timeless. One example I've heard is the Mosaic law that one must stop on one's journey to help someone who is having trouble with their mule/donkey/ass. Patently not written for the 20th century traveller, yet many of us would agree in principle that it's nice to have someone pull over to give a hand when you get a flat tyre...

It is a basic concept of Deity that the Deity exists outside of the space time continuum and therefore is unchanging. The bible, however, exists in space and time. Not so in Islam though, where the Holy Quran is eternal and unchanging and exists eternally in heaven with Allah. The Quran, theologically, is not the equivalent of the Bible. The Hadith is the equivalent of the Bible. The nearest equivalent to the Quran in Christianity is Christ himself.
I can't help but think that the Christian Bibliolatry of today has its root in some medieval religious type engaging in an "our book's better than yours" exchange with Islam...

Anyway, you don't appear to be a "believer" Bilderberger, yet you have a more elevated (for want of time to think of a better word!) ideal of what the bible actually is than most "believers" I know (Fundys/JW's/Mormons excluded!)
 
I fear that you miss what I am trying to say. We could argue in circles for quite some time. I shall try to clarify what I am saying.

1. In understanding the history of a religion, I totally agree, one must look to the original culture of the time of writing. As you rightly point out - the bible is, well, quite literally, a bible - a collection of works. There are huge cultural differences over the passage of time between OT and NT writings (and indeed, even within passages of the same Testament).

2. In understanding the practice of a religion - one must refer to the culture of the time of practice. You quite correctly state that there are passages of religious texts which are of their moment - of their time. These are then interpreted in the MODERN world to apply to the world of the believer. The beleive of the believer is dictated to by their own world - not by the world of the originator.

If one just assumes that, in order to understand a religion, all you have to do is look back to the culture at its inception - then you only see half the picture. Otherwise, you argue that the Spanish Inquisition believed in the same as Pope John Paul II. Culture changes - it changes religion.

Perhaps we are talking about different things? Are you suggesting that there is one true Christian religion? That true religion over-rides cultural interpretation? If we understand what was meant by the originator, we can get closer to understanding the essence of God?

But, the originators were human - no more, no less. Not even St Paul claimed to be anything more than human.

No I am not a "believer" ;). But, being a non-believer should not preclude me from understanding what "faith" is and what "faith" involves. You can never dent a person's "faith" with history.
 
Thanks for the prompt and clarifying reply Bilderberger!

Are you suggesting that there is one true Christian religion?
Click to expand...

By no means! Christianity is a worldview which produces religions. Even at the time of the writing of the "New Testament" there were at least three discernable Christian "religions". They shared certain beliefs, but responded in different religious ways to this worldview. Rather than one true religion over-riding cultural interpretation, the many Christian religions (today more so than ever) constitute a response of a particular sub-culture to the life and death of Christ.



If we understand what was meant by the originator, we can get closer to understanding the essence of God?
Click to expand...

One Evangelical once proclaimed at me in a bookshop "You won't find God in a book!" And proceeded to show me just how I could find God in a book!
I believe its more a question of seeing how close the originator believed themselves to be to understanding the essence of their God.

If one just assumes that, in order to understand a religion, all you have to do is look back to the culture at its inception - then you only see half the picture. Otherwise, you argue that the Spanish Inquisition believed in the same as Pope John Paul II. Culture changes - it changes religion.
Click to expand...

This is something I've just been pondering myself! I've always been interested in the Jewishness of Christianity. Now I'm thinking of the Christianity of my own forebears. I've recently acquired a dinger of a book (in a sale too!) called "The Barbarian Conversion" which covers the adoption of Christianity (and adaptation of Christianity!) by pagan Europe. Of particular interest is what the Northmen, later Normans (my own predecessors) did with Christianity. How culture reacts to a worldview religiously is fascinating in more ways than I have time to enumerate here.

Not even St Paul claimed to be anything more than human.
Click to expand...

... and "the chief of sinners"

But, being a non-believer should not preclude me from understanding what "faith" is and what "faith" involves. You can never dent a person's "faith" with history.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. People forget that Atheism is a matter of faith too.
I really do believe that it is difficult to dent faith with history, and used to have a quote at the bottom of my posts by Oliver C Quick who reckoned that if an Atheist historian and a Christian believer were both to agree categorically that Christ rose physically from the dead, that they would still disagree on the meaning of the event for us today, i.e., they would still hold different faiths.

It's similar to the Evolutionists and Creationists arguing over the Flood story, both missing the point completely - what does this story mean? (not historically or scientifically, but on a personal level) I reckon both parties are often very unsure in their personal faith, whether it be in Genesis or Evolution, to be bothered by the rantings of the other party. As for why people post disparaging remarks about Christianity or the Bible ... an undoubting Atheist wouldn't bother.
 
Certainly is an interesting discussion - will look out for the book you mention.

However, I guess we have hijacked this thread for too long - I will try and think of a suitable thread to post in the Religion section.

Back to Ufology..............

My main thought on the subject which started this thread relates to the recent BBC documentary on the subject of religion being a function of the brain and that stimulation to certain parts of the brain can bring about a "religious" experience.

I know this is not a new theory - but as was mentioned briefly earlier - perhaps the experience of God is the same as the experience of UFO/aliens/abduction etc. The difference is the contextual framework of the experiencer. So, in a sense, the Christians who argue that aliens are angels, may be right. Similarly, both terms are wrong - they are just emotive titles given to the same experience. That experience is so "unearthly" that our limited brains fill in the gaps with more familiar features (well, as familiar as an angel or alien could be).

All very dull really - just a figment of people's disordered and mis-firing minds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top