June 24, 2012 Nick Redfern

[wwkirk]

Nick was interesting as usual. Here is Kirby's comic of the Face on Mars:

 

[PararealitySaint]

I have noticed that not too many people have replied to this thread pertaining to the Nick Redfern episode. I would just like to say that I thought it was interesting, yet I found myself a little dumbfounded at the point where Nick explained that he didn't believe in the inter dimensional/demonic aspect of the E.T. theory. I haven't read his book but thought that anyone putting this much time and effort into publishing would have had his "back" into it, but then again, he did explain how just because he did this detailed research, that didn't mean he believed in what he wrote down.

I know that many of you honestly believe that there was an Ancient E.T. and faces on mars and the like, but I still hold out for the inter dimensional theory as most sound. Whether we tend to call them Demons or Gods or just plain old live beings who drop in and out of our plane of existence; to me this sounds a great deal more realistic than and extra terrestrial actually visiting this little marble and taking the kind of interest in we human beings like they wish to believe.

Either way, Nick was his usual detailed and very interesting self. It's nice to have one of the Masters of the paranormal on once in a while, as the quality of the show only stands to improve. Good job Nick, I always like to find where you might be next to listen in!

 

[Apocalypto]

Another great show. Keep chalking them up, Gene & Chris.

 

[dr.abbadon]

I usually like listening to Nick Redfern. This episode just failed to live up to the usual high standards that Nick usually brings to the table. It was almost a kaleidescope main stream (weirdo) topics, Nick was tantalising us with topics which captivate even the most casual person with the faintest interest in the paranormal field....as the excitement was built in the intro....we all come crashing back down almost akin to ripping your parachute off at the last second with dumbed down explanations, at one stage I was almost waiting for him to say it was swamp gas! It was almost as if he was trying to appease the skeptics with his conclusions. Perhaps it was just me? Cue skeptics chiming in with "the truth is almost never stranger than fiction".

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Mr Nick Refern is the best UFO investigator at the moment in his age group and Nick should write a book on the USO subject from historical prospective to modern day . Also interview eyewitness all over the World. Also Paracast needs a perspective on UFO phenomena from a local scientific investigator with credible academic background from China, India, Philippines, Indonesia or Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam etc.

 

[Nick Redfern]

I have noticed that not too many people have replied to this thread pertaining to the Nick Redfern episode. I would just like to say that I thought it was interesting, yet I found myself a little dumbfounded at the point where Nick explained that he didn't believe in the inter dimensional/demonic aspect of the E.T. theory. I haven't read his book but thought that anyone putting this much time and effort into publishing would have had his "back" into it, but then again, he did explain how just because he did this detailed research, that didn't mean he believed in what he wrote down.

I know that many of you honestly believe that there was an Ancient E.T. and faces on mars and the like, but I still hold out for the inter dimensional theory as most sound. Whether we tend to call them Demons or Gods or just plain old live beings who drop in and out of our plane of existence; to me this sounds a great deal more realistic than and extra terrestrial actually visiting this little marble and taking the kind of interest in we human beings like they wish to believe.

Either way, Nick was his usual detailed and very interesting self. It's nice to have one of the Masters of the paranormal on once in a while, as the quality of the show only stands to improve. Good job Nick, I always like to find where you might be next to listen in!

Para: The reason why I don't support the demonic theory as detailed in my Final Events book is simple: Final Events is a study of a quasi-official think-tank in Govt that concludes UFOs have demonic - rather than alien - origins. I make it clear early in the book that my reason for writing the book was because I found it fascinating that there was such a group and that the Government was funding it. So, I considered it a great and intriguing story to tell of how and why the group came to exist and how and why it reached its conclusions. But, I also made it clear that the views and conclusions were theirs, not mine.

I fully believe - provided you make it clear - that you can tell a story of something (like this) and also make it clear that while it's a fascinating story, as the author I differ on my thoughts re the origin of the UFO phenomenon.

I do agree with them in the sense that I dont think the phenomenon is ET-based. I'm more inclined to go with the idea of parallel realms (if such can even be proved to exist, of course), but the problem I have is they placed their beliefs in a rigid "Hell, demons, etc" angle. I have ideas and theories. The think-tank had beliefs that they equated as belief=fact. It doesn't. So, if they came up with somehting that wasn't belief-based that would have been a different matter.

But, it doesnt take away that the mere fact they existed - and coupled with all the research they did - makes it a great story to tell. But I don't endorse their views.

 

[Nick Redfern]

I usually like listening to Nick Redfern. This episode just failed to live up to the usual high standards that Nick usually brings to the table. It was almost a kaleidescope main stream (weirdo) topics, Nick was tantalising us with topics which captivate even the most casual person with the faintest interest in the paranormal field....as the excitement was built in the intro....we all come crashing back down almost akin to ripping your parachute off at the last second with dumbed down explanations, at one stage I was almost waiting for him to say it was swamp gas! It was almost as if he was trying to appease the skeptics with his conclusions. Perhaps it was just me? Cue skeptics chiming in with "the truth is almost never stranger than fiction".

Dr. A: I have no interest, need or desire in appeasing the skeptics - or believers, or open-minded people. I can only relate what I discover and conclude. And some of the stuff in the book CAN be explained in down to earth ways (such as the NSA's interest in Crop Circles, which had ZERO to do with the nature of the phenomenon and ALL to do with the psychological manipulation of it).

Other stuff in there is harder to explain. But, if I write one book that is full of mystery and another that has various rational and down to earth explanations involved, I have to tell it like it is. But there's no motivation of appeasing anyone. I couldn't give a dogs bollock about ever doing that.

 

[Digital Trickster]

I always enjoy listening to you Nick and have always loved that you find interesting stories in the this field and present them without pushing your view on the reader.Its nice that someone can present material and not try to push a agenda or personal belief on the reader or listener and just says here is a intriguing story or subject and take what you will from it

 

[SonofaSkunk]

I always like listening to Nick. He's a brilliant man. Proved it by having the good sense to move to Dallas. LOL!

 

[dr.abbadon]

Dr. A: I have no interest, need or desire in appeasing the skeptics - or believers, or open-minded people. I can only relate what I discover and conclude. And some of the stuff in the book CAN be explained in down to earth ways (such as the NSA's interest in Crop Circles, which had ZERO to do with the nature of the phenomenon and ALL to do with the psychological manipulation of it).
Other stuff in there is harder to explain. But, if I write one book that is full of mystery and another that has various rational and down to earth explanations involved, I have to tell it like it is. But there's no motivation of appeasing anyone. I couldn't give a dogs bollock about ever doing that.

Nick, I must read the book. I was only commenting on the content of the podcast and how it came across to me. I did hear your interview on mysterious universe and that was fantastic! Aaron and Ben seemed to tease the really exciting topics with great ease.

 

[PararealitySaint]

I do agree with them in the sense that I dont think the phenomenon is ET-based. I'm more inclined to go with the idea of parallel realms (if such can even be proved to exist, of course), but the problem I have is they placed their beliefs in a rigid "Hell, demons, etc" angle.

Why Nick? Why do you have a problem believing that this could possibly be "demonic" in origin? I don't mean to be crass in this my friend, as I happen to think that your presentation as well as demeanor in the paranormal world is excellent. The problem I have is that it's all to easy for people to immediately throw out the notion that the Bible just might be correct, and instead defend ideas that to most people in the world, sound so far out, they begin to sound almost silly.

This isn't to say that it's my way or the highway.....just that all too many times it becomes a commonality to denounce biblical theory as instantly wrong and turn instead to what today, "feels" is the more "politically correct" theory. One which presents a more "universally acceptable" notion than would a religious consideration. Why be afraid that our Forefathers might have had something when they said Jesus is the Son of God and God in his infinite wisdom sent us a book by which many of the explanations for what happens in this world is already drawn and addressed? Is it not romantic enough? Not ideologically sound because it cannot be explained scientifically?

Or perhaps it just is because others might call that person a charlatan and a religious zealot because they were singled out and took a stand?

Lastly, I would bet you a dime to a dollar that right now as I finish this and post my response, there will be a half a dozen members of this forum who cannot wait to tickle their keyboard in defense of little grey aliens being some form of intelligent species visiting our little marble...or even those who cannot wait to reply to this thread with extreme condescension for daring to expose a belief in the Almighty as real and the fallen angel demonically influencing man each and every day. They will put forth examples of the Bible's conflicting stories, the different interpretations in error, or a half dozen other reasons for disbelieving what is plainly right in front of them.

I know that your research was presented to expose this study in the government....did you ever ask yourself why? Why they were doing this? I'm sorry I didn't buy the book as of yet, and maybe this question is answered in thus....but maybe the real answer is because something important within the study might just have been viable for the reasoning itself.

 

[Muadib]

I'm not here to tell anyone what to believe, but my point is that when you take the bible and use it as the basis to say "Aha! I've got it! I know what it is!" Not only are you being intellectually dishonest, you're blinding yourself to alternative interpretations that may prove to be true. The reality is, none of us know, we're all free to believe what we want, some ideas have more merit than others and it's up to the individual decide where they want to come down on the issue. The only honest position is simply "we don't know yet" In my opinion, using the bible as a primary source for anything is a grave mistake, that being said I don't believe the ETH any more than I believe in the demonic theory. Also, which forefathers are you talking about, several of them including Jefferson and Adams denounced Christianity quite fervently, so I'm curious where you picked up that idea?

Jefferson liked the message of Jesus, but was vehemently opposed to organized religion and was certainly not a believer in the divinity of Christ:

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


John Adams on the myth of the incarnation of Christ:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world." John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

 

[PararealitySaint]

I'm not here to tell anyone what to believe, but my point is that when you take the bible and use it as the basis to say "Aha! I've got it! I know what it is!" Not only are you being intellectually dishonest, you're blinding yourself to alternative interpretations that may prove to be true. The reality is, none of us know, we're all free to believe what we want, some ideas have more merit than others and it's up to the individual decide where they want to come down on the issue. The only honest position is simply "we don't know yet" In my opinion, using the bible as a primary source for anything is a grave mistake, that being said I don't believe the ETH any more than I believe in the demonic theory. Also, which forefathers are you talking about, several of them including Jefferson and Adams denounced Christianity quite fervently, so I'm curious where you picked up that idea?

Jefferson liked the message of Jesus, but was vehemently opposed to organized religion and was certainly not a believer in the divinity of Christ:

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823


John Adams on the myth of the incarnation of Christ:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world." John Adams, "this awful blashpemy" that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ, from Ira D Cardiff, What Great Men Think of Religion, quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

Hmmmm....and who was quoted as saying this?

"Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian."

And onwards to divine intervention and divinity in general he wrote:

(First Inaugural address)....he declared that we should be "acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter."

In his first message to Congress, in 1801, he thanked the "beneficent Being" who instilled in the warring politicians a (temporary) "spirit of conciliation and forgiveness." In his second message, he credited the "smiles of Providence" for economic prosperity, peace abroad and even good relations with the Indians."

But lest we forget a letter to Benjamin Rush:

DEAR SIR, -- In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.

I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other. At the short intervals since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information.

Then another pro Christian Founding Father:

President George Washington, September 17th, 1796
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"

His Prayer At Valley Forge "Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prorate myself before Thee."

"Bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy Son, Jesus. "Of all dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

"To the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian."

And John Adams who you mention:

"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Or better yet:

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."

And if that is not enough to show the devout sentiments of the man, let's look at this little ditty:

"Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System."

And yet another from Jefferson:

"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart."

What about John Hancock:

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."

How about Benjamin Franklin:

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshiped.

"That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

"But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."


And we can find pro Christian quotes from many other Founding Fathers as well. The entire premise of my point was to show the ease by which someone can so quickly judge how, "limiting" myself to a Christian explanation for demonic activity in this context can be set as, "using the bible as a primary source for anything as a grave mistake." Thanks for helping me prove my point.

But, alas, it's proper and in actuality quite expected for others to preach little grey creatures as intelligent extra terrestrial beings within the premise that they have to come from space, and have to be "ancient" and therefore must be something different than the Christian notion of the works of the Anti Christ. To do this is so widely palatable that people (not including you in this aspect as you stated you don't believe in ETH) are utilizing the mode as likened to a religion within its very nature.....one that dare I say it, creates the very same supposed fallacy many are too easily willing to present as feelings against a divine reasoning for inter-dimensionally driven demonic activity.

 

[Muadib]

We can also find many quotes from the founding fathers denouncing religion and religious attitudes, which one of us is right? I don't know, and I think my position on that is infinitely more honest than yours. Really, it makes no difference to me as ancient man was often superstitious and illogical, not to mention oppressed by the very church that claimed to serve them.

Christians often try to co-opt historical figures with no belief or very little belief in god as proof that they're right, I don't buy it for one second. Let's ignore the silliness of trying to invoke the founding fathers beliefs to support your position on UFO's and possible Alien life forms for a second though.......

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
[Benjamin Franklin]

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
[Ben Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754 (Works, Volume XIII)]

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."
[Benjamin Franklin, in _Toward The Mystery_]

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
[Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728]

"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man."
[Thomas Paine]

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."
[Thomas Paine]

"As to the book called the bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions and a history of bad times and bad men."
[Thomas Paine, writing to Andrew Dean August 15, 1806]
"...Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas."
[Thomas Paine, Age Of Reason, pg. 54]

"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion."
[Thomas Paine]

"The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the Word of God. The Word of God exists in something else."
[Thomas Paine, Age of Reason]

"The adulterous connection between church and state."
[Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_]

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."
[Thomas Paine, _The Age of Reason_]

"That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not."
[The Life and Works of Thomas Paine, Vol. 9 p. 134]

"The NT, compared with the Old, is like a farce of one act..."
[_The Age of Reason_, Thomas Paine, p. 153]

"There are matters in the Bible, said to be done by the express commandment of God, that are shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice....".
[Thomas Paine]
"..but the Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any..."
[_The Age of Reason_, Thomas Paine, p. 104]

"As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions, and a history of bad times and bad men. There are but a few good characters in the whole book."
[Thomas Paine, Letter to William Duane, April 23, 1806]

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church."
[Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

"The story of Jesus Christ appearing after he was dead is the story of an apparition, such as timid imaginations can always create in vision, and credulity believe. Stories of this kind had been told of the assassination of Julius Caesar..."
[Thomas Paine]

"What is it the Bible teaches us? - raping, cruelty, and murder. What is it the New Testament teaches us? - to believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married, and the belief of this debauchery is called faith."
[Thomas Paine]

"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

"If the obstacles of bigotry and priestcraft can be surmounted, we may hope that common sense will suffice to do everything else."
[Thomas Jefferson]

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
[Thomas Jefferson]

"He is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong."
[Thomas Jefferson]

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
[Thomas Jefferson]

"If we could believe that [Jesus]...countenanced the follies, falsehoods and charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, ...the conclusion would be irresistible...that he was an imposter."
[Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) 3rd president of the U.S.]

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association]

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."
[Thomas Jefferson, 1776]

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
[Thomas Jefferson]

"...difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
[Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia [1781-1785]"]

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
[Thomas Jefferson, in _Toward the Mystery_]

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac."
[Thomas Jefferson, _Jefferson Bible_]

"[no citizen] shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever...[to] compell a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of [religious] opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."
[Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom]

"..our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"
[Thomas Jefferson]

"A lively and lasting sense of filial duty is more effectually impressed on the mind of a son or daughter by reading King Lear, than by all the dry volumes of ethics, and divinity, that ever were written."
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Robert Skipwith, August 3, 1771]

"There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world."
[Thomas Jefferson]

"We discover [in the gospels] a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication."
[Thomas Jefferson, _Jefferson Bible_]

"The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."
[Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr]

"...merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
[Thomas Jefferson, on the Revelations in the Bible, from Thomas Jefferson: A Reference Biography, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1986.]

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
[Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814]

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787]

"The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence. The doctirnes which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."
[Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams]

"The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw in the mysticisms of Plato materials with which they might build up an artificial system, which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence"
[Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, July 5, 1814]

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

"[In regard to the Trinity]; "Tom, had you and I been 40 days with Moses, and beheld the great God, and even if God himself had tried to tell us that three was one . . . and one equals three, you and I would never have believed it. We would never fall victims to such lies."
[John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson]

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."
[John Adams]

"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
[John Adams]

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect."
[James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774,
as quoted by Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion
and the New Nation, San Francisco:Harper & Row, 1987, p. 37]

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
[James Madison, 1803]

 

[Muadib]

Let's look at another historical figure that Christians have tried to co-opt in their quest to Christianize history:





EINSTEIN





"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."
[Albert Einstein, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited
by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
[Albert Einstein]

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
[Albert Einstein,_The World as I See It_]

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously."
[Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]

"The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action."
[Albert Einstein]

"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
["Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh
Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.]

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
[Albert Einstein]

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
[Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]

"What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism"
[Albert Einstein]

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
[Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
[Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."
[Albert Einstein]

 

[Muadib]

And we can find pro Christian quotes from many other Founding Fathers as well. The entire premise of my point was to show the ease by which someone can so quickly judge how, "limiting" myself to a Christian explanation for demonic activity in this context can be set as, "using the bible as a primary source for anything as a grave mistake." Thanks for helping me prove my point.

But, alas, it's proper and in actuality quite expected for others to preach little grey creatures as intelligent extra terrestrial beings within the premise that they have to come from space, and have to be "ancient" and therefore must be something different than the Christian notion of the works of the Anti Christ. To do this is so widely palatable that people (not including you in this aspect as you stated you don't believe in ETH) are utilizing the mode as likened to a religion within its very nature.....one that dare I say it, creates the very same supposed fallacy many are too easily willing to present as feelings against a divine reasoning for inter-dimensionally driven demonic activity.

To my mind, it is completely ridiculous to limit yourself to a Christian explanation, as you don't know whether this activity is demonic in nature and you certainly can't prove that it is. It could be the answer, it could be one small part of the phenomenon or it could have nothing to do with at all. We really don't know. The bible has nothing to do with anomalous alien beings in the minds of the vast majority of biblical scholars. The idea is literally laughed at outside of a small circle of fundamentalists. Do I think that means it doesn't deserves to be studied? No, not at all. Like I said it could be the answer, but when you're simply saying that you know for a fact that it's the answer with no evidence but the bible to back it up, you're blinding yourself to a large aspect of the phenomenon. An open mind is essential if we're ever going to achieve any understanding of what this UFO thing truly is.

I'm suspicious of anyone who says they have all the answers, whether it's religion or people in the UFO field. I would question anyone who insisted that we know this is an ET phenomenon the same as I would question someone who says we know it's demonic. We've had religion around for thousands and thousands of years and in all that time, what has it really told us about the universe that we live in? Compare that to science which hasn't been around even half the time and has explained ten thousand times what religion has about the world we live in, then tell me which method we should use to study this phenomenon.

I agree that some people have turned the ETH into a religion of it's own, it's just as intellectually dishonest as saying you know for a fact that this phenomenon is demonic. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the "ancient" thing, are you also going to tell me that the universe and the Earth is only 6,000 years old? So they couldn't, in fact, be ancient? I'm not sure where you're coming from and I'd appreciate clarification.

Calling this inter dimensional activity, while an interesting theory and one that I believe merits further study, rests on the ability to prove that these other dimensions actually exist and that anything can pass between them besides gravity. This hasn't been done yet. However you want to slice it, saying "I know their demonic!" is ridiculous, because you don't really know, and you can't prove it with anything but some quotes from an ancient book that most biblical scholars feel isn't meant to be interpreted literally in the first place. Theories are one thing, trying to present them as fact is quite another. Nowadays, most serious researchers in this field are just as reluctant to say it's ET as they are to say it's demonic. Excluding the old timers who've clung to that idea like a life raft for 30 years and refuse to consider any other answer, they're just as full of it as someone who says they know for a fact that it's interdimensional demonic activity.

So if it's your theory that they're demonic, that's just fine and you're definitely entitled to it, but please don't think that you're entitled to push your beliefs on others and then get angry when they're not convinced. If you're trying to present your beliefs as indisputable fact as so many religious people try to do when discussing this subject, then you're simply being dishonest as to what you can prove.

 

[PararealitySaint]

LOL! Once again the point is clarified and derived from both the attack as well as the intent. I say you say we all say......whatever. The point is the "jump all over religion" bandwagon is ripe for example today. The majority of every quote given (other than Paine's) is a direct reaction to a point about religious fervency during the time, not an actual denouncement of the religion itself. So what. The mere fact that the, 'I have to defend my argument via the use of derogatory attacks' now crawls out to show its ugliness once again as the initial point I made:

1. "my position on that is infinitely more honest than yours."

2. "Not only are you being intellectually dishonest, you're blinding yourself to alternative interpretations that may prove to be true."

3. "Let's ignore the silliness of trying to invoke..."

And on and on. It is a wonder how anyone can keep the blinders on and actually purport to allow for revisionist history so badly as to even begin to pretend that the Founding Fathers weren't for the most part, devout Christians who created this very government based on Christian Jude-ac principles. Not only did they pray (a Christian prayer always led by a Christian Reverend) before every meeting, but the ten commandments were there for everyone to see, clearly set within the very hallowed halls themselves. The Founding Fathers believed in the separation of Church and State as seen in the following summation presented by someone you might be interested in:

(By you guessed it, that Atheist and God hater... Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in 1802)
Jefferson writes,"religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

It does not emphasize that the Church should be out of the decision making process as an entity of sovereign authority (and it hasn't been....look to the south for that fact), only that people should have the right to worship as they please without said government interfering in their rights thereof. To state any less than the facts here would be disingenuous to the real intent of our Christian Forefathers.

The grave injustice anyone can do to their memory is to pretend otherwise. Perhaps it doesn't fit in the "Politically Correct" mode of today's world, but the historical fact is the historical fact. Our Forefather's left a tyrannical hand within the religious persecution delved upon them in Europe, and they created a government to free themselves of having been forced to practice their religious beliefs in the way others wished. This is a far cry from stating that they didn't utilize Christian Jude-ac principles in developing what they believed in all along.

Now lastly, I will not argue the point further. The original question was for Nick Redfern so please allow for his opinion to my questions and please leave the anti religious fervency for another forum.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Can I just jump in and point out that relating anything to the 'founding fathers' is misguided. They may have achieved a lot but that does not make their opinions on many things right. Or wrong!

I've written about gun control in the US and the NRA always trumpet out 'oh if the founding fathers could see things now......'
And? the reasons they may have had to include a right to bear arms means nothing today. They could not have conceived of the sheer number of guns and things like the ridiculous 'war on drugs'.

My point is that these guys were hundreds of years ago. Great honourable men no doubt, but that does not mean they have the answers for the present day surely?

Quote from an American comedian: 'The right to bear arms is as ridiculous as the right to arm bears' - classic. (I'm not anti-gun, just anti go into gunstore and take your pick etc)

And religion? Well, everyone agrees that is a matter of faith and not fact.

 

[Kieran]

I don't buy into lot of Nicks Stuff, he obviously doing all this writing to earn a living. He must be doing ok he is everywhere.

 

[PararealitySaint]

Can I just jump in and point out that relating anything to the 'founding fathers' is misguided. They may have achieved a lot but that does not make their opinions on many things right. Or wrong!

I've written about gun control in the US and the NRA always trumpet out 'oh if the founding fathers could see things now......'
And? the reasons they may have had to include a right to bear arms means nothing today. They could not have conceived of the sheer number of guns and things like the ridiculous 'war on drugs'.

My point is that these guys were hundreds of years ago. Great honourable men no doubt, but that does not mean they have the answers for the present day surely?

Quote from an American comedian: 'The right to bear arms is as ridiculous as the right to arm bears' - classic. (I'm not anti-gun, just anti go into gunstore and take your pick etc)

And religion? Well, everyone agrees that is a matter of faith and not fact.

And interesting point. There is a point here that I would like to include. The Founding Fathers allowed for very abstract articles within the document itself, not because they were dolts or simpletons, but because they had the perception of time, well aware and listed quite genuinely within the content itself.