You THINK you know what was Humanly possible in the past and what is humanly possible in the present as well as what is humanly possible in the future based on what you think you know about human abilities and potential. However, you don't know what is non-humanlypossible in the whole realm of existence as you seem you be presumptuously assuming in reference to nonhuman creatures. Before you reflexively
eschew this as utterly-ridiculous religiously-motivated nonsense, I suggest you review all the literature which discusses the possible non-human civilizations that might just exist out there,. Ever read any of that?
This is some of the most eloquent and skillfully executed sarcasm I've read in a long time.
Actually, enthusiastic conjecturing in relation to such probable alien creatures runs rampant in scientific circles. What such creatures might be able to do might have done or will be capable of doing is a very popular subject among cosmologists. They all glibly and readily admit that those hypothetically possible alien accomplishments might be presently viewed as forever beyond human achievement.
Because speculation about what aliens are capable of, such as landings at Roswell or butt-probing of hillbilly abduction victims, is a common subject of discourse among rational scientifically educated people. I might add that this has everything to do with human powered flight capabilities in centuries past.
Of course that's the prevailing mindset until the being or creature is suggested to be God. Then hysteria sets in, minds are spasmodically closed, previously enthusiastic speculation grinds to a screeching halt, and things suddenly become morosely impossible.
Which of course is very unconvincing logic due to the obvious hypocritical contradictions which strongly indicate atheistically-convenient bias.
Tell that to the Raelians. All they did was suggest that your intelligent designer was really aliens. That's when hysteria sets in, minds are spasmodically closed, previously enthusiastic speculation grinds to a screeching halt, and things suddenly become morosely impossible. Which of course is very unconvincing logic due to the obvious hypocritical contradictions which strongly indicate theistically-convenient bias.
In view if the above, I'm exceedingly afraid to say, it becomes painfully clear that you know essentially can prove NOTHING in thing in relation to those accounts except that you disagree. Unless of course you can offer conclusive proof that such miracles weren't the product of a possible alien technology?
Well obviously it was an alien tractor beam that caused Elijah to ascend to the heavens. That or he was dumped into the sea naked after having his clothes stripped off by a whirlwind, so the author of 1 Kings had to fabricate a story to cover up the humiliation.
Can you guarantee that with 100% certainty? Or can you discount the existence of a being somewhere in the realm of existence, a realm where you occupy a microscopic part and to vast regions beyond human perceptuual access is blocked due to neuroligical ummmm-limitations, who just might be able to pull that off?
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
Just because something isn't happening now doesn't mean it did not occur in the past. That's a false premise.
Wow, that question begging, burden of proof-shifting, red herring of a statement nailed it right on the head.
First, scripture is never understood in isolation. It is understood within context. What is the context? All scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. One scripture will shed light on another and prevent misunderstanding of meaning or intent.
Right, scripture written by different authors, living in different places, at different times, with different points of view, trying to push different political agendas. We can safely ignore other Jewish writings such as the Midrashes, Talmud, or books that were excluded from the final cut of the bible, because those obviously contain heresy that would undermine the hamster wheel of using the bible to prove the bible is true.
In this case, it's known from biblical context that God does NOT possess human beings in the manner that Satan and his demons do. It's also known from context that God is described as moving or encouraging people to do what's righteous via his holy spirit. It's also known that the one moving humans to do evil is Satan. So context indicates one interpretation.
"Context" also indicates that God created Satan and his demons, and that Satan is still very much a servant on God's payroll as far as the book of Job. But we can't blame God because Satan had free will, right?
That God allowed Pharaoh to continue in his rebellious course, and in that manner hardened Pharaoh's heart. Not because he took possession of pharaoh's mind. Simply as a consequence of not destroying him immediately, but allowing him to plow forward rebelliously so that he could serve as an example.
It's funny that one could read an interpretation of
mercy out of a story that was hell bent on advertising God's swift and brutal
justice. Never mind that failing to destroy someone right away hardly qualifies as mercy.
