thegreenman
Skilled Investigator
The guest needs more than a lecturing, he needs a good shrink and maybe a dose of humility.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
May 31, 2009
- Thread starter inuk2600
- Start date
Free episodes:
The guest needs more than a lecturing, he needs a good shrink and maybe a dose of humility.
i have a big problem with how this guy interprets the bible. He uses the example of how an angel visited daniel but first stopped off to fight the king of persia. Now, what he seems to be doing with this quote is taking it entirely out of context and using a warped kind of hindsight, transfixed upon this story. It's like he's saying something like "okay, so there's loadsa stuff that points to a portal between dimensions in the middle east, and that's what the angel was alluding to."
Now, I don't know what the angel was alluding to. But it may be possible with a little research someone may find something interesting about political events at that time. An angel fighting the persian king may symbolise a victory over him in a battle.
This is what really annoys me when people are interpreting religious texts that are far removed from our reality, in the sense of how we live our day to day lives and how they did. Ancient religious texts are brimming with symbolism, and are all the richer for it. But you have to take them in their context.
In a poem, someone might write using a metaphor which may be instantly recognisable to someone from the same time period. We don't take him as a crazy kook for writing in such a way - but we understand that metaphor is being used. And a good metaphor can actually say more than a thousand words.
Just look at the writings of Herodotus, the "father of history". He wrote a history of the Greek war with the Persian Empire. Despite being a "history", his tale is filled with gods and goddesses intervening, alongside a whole host of supernatural beings. Such encouters are side by side with other historically accurate events. They blend in seemlessly.
It seems people don't understand the function of these gods in these stories. Is Herodotus a kook? No, but he liked to tell a story, and was not adverse to metaphor. In a polytheistic society, how could you get your point (as to the nature or cause of a certain event) across easily, so that everyone could understand? Simple. You say that Zues was at play in a certain event. People would instantly say "Zues is the god of such and such, say wisdom, so Herodotus is saying that that was a wise move by the prince, or what ever.
We haven't lost this craft ourselves at all - fiction and poetry are all around. This guy is relying on hindsight and assuming that everything has a rational explanation outside of it's own context. So therefore it must be an epic battle of good and evil being fought in dimension x.
The value of metaphor is great - it should be treated with respect.
Not that there are no prophecies, but there is evidence, and then there are leaps of fate that plunge you into murky water! (Like the metaphor?)
Now, I don't know what the angel was alluding to. But it may be possible with a little research someone may find something interesting about political events at that time. An angel fighting the persian king may symbolise a victory over him in a battle.
This is what really annoys me when people are interpreting religious texts that are far removed from our reality, in the sense of how we live our day to day lives and how they did. Ancient religious texts are brimming with symbolism, and are all the richer for it. But you have to take them in their context.
In a poem, someone might write using a metaphor which may be instantly recognisable to someone from the same time period. We don't take him as a crazy kook for writing in such a way - but we understand that metaphor is being used. And a good metaphor can actually say more than a thousand words.
Just look at the writings of Herodotus, the "father of history". He wrote a history of the Greek war with the Persian Empire. Despite being a "history", his tale is filled with gods and goddesses intervening, alongside a whole host of supernatural beings. Such encouters are side by side with other historically accurate events. They blend in seemlessly.
It seems people don't understand the function of these gods in these stories. Is Herodotus a kook? No, but he liked to tell a story, and was not adverse to metaphor. In a polytheistic society, how could you get your point (as to the nature or cause of a certain event) across easily, so that everyone could understand? Simple. You say that Zues was at play in a certain event. People would instantly say "Zues is the god of such and such, say wisdom, so Herodotus is saying that that was a wise move by the prince, or what ever.
We haven't lost this craft ourselves at all - fiction and poetry are all around. This guy is relying on hindsight and assuming that everything has a rational explanation outside of it's own context. So therefore it must be an epic battle of good and evil being fought in dimension x.
The value of metaphor is great - it should be treated with respect.
Not that there are no prophecies, but there is evidence, and then there are leaps of fate that plunge you into murky water! (Like the metaphor?)
Invading the fridge
Paranormal Novice
I think some episodes needs a word of the day. I feel Assumption would work with this one. Eg Cattle horribly mutilated must mean demons or Giants from Nibiru(sp). Nothing else can explain that right? right?
Gareth
Nothin' to see here
Hmm, not sure if I should even put myself through this one. Im a couple of mins in and the guy is already throwing out stuff like he "knows" theres a malevolence associated with the phenomena, because well, who would like to go through that stuff right?
Well thats automatically a huge problem. He has come to a conclusion, for one. And two, we are still in the stages of proving the reality of abductions/mutes and to assign a morality value to them is just incredibly premature.
Maybe Ill store this one in my 'emergency podcast vault'.
Well thats automatically a huge problem. He has come to a conclusion, for one. And two, we are still in the stages of proving the reality of abductions/mutes and to assign a morality value to them is just incredibly premature.
Maybe Ill store this one in my 'emergency podcast vault'.
threed
Skilled Investigator
Christians and other "believers" tend to be very challenged when it comes to objective reality or the true nature of scientific evidence. Their approach to apologies is an example.
I have frequently heard phrases like "he made a career debunking the skeptics who say the bible is full of contradictions..." Common sense would tell you if chapter one of the latest Stephen King novel says one thing but chapter three says something entirely different, then to discount the possibility of contradiction you must find the answer within the same Stephen King novel.
Yet, for believers, this is not the case. Basically, any imaginary explanation (even completely outside of the bible) is fair game. The guest's mention of the Shroud of Turin is another example of this.
If you study the guy's research carefully you find all sorts of circular logic, unsubstantiated assumptions and plain deceptions to explain away how a Byzantine forgery could be the true image of Jesus. Which, if you think about -- if it were for real -- would only serve to prove that Jesus is dead anyway.
It's amazing to me how in this day, two thousand years later, we could still be seriously debating a late Roman cult (and allow it to influence our public policies).
I have frequently heard phrases like "he made a career debunking the skeptics who say the bible is full of contradictions..." Common sense would tell you if chapter one of the latest Stephen King novel says one thing but chapter three says something entirely different, then to discount the possibility of contradiction you must find the answer within the same Stephen King novel.
Yet, for believers, this is not the case. Basically, any imaginary explanation (even completely outside of the bible) is fair game. The guest's mention of the Shroud of Turin is another example of this.
If you study the guy's research carefully you find all sorts of circular logic, unsubstantiated assumptions and plain deceptions to explain away how a Byzantine forgery could be the true image of Jesus. Which, if you think about -- if it were for real -- would only serve to prove that Jesus is dead anyway.
It's amazing to me how in this day, two thousand years later, we could still be seriously debating a late Roman cult (and allow it to influence our public policies).
Loose Leaf Tea
Skilled Investigator
1. And it came to pass that David, that is called Bi-ed-ny, did slew the garrulous Goliath from the wastelands of Marzulli.
2. And the children of the Caste that is Para didst witness this smiting in wonder and they didst crowd about him saying, "We liketh your style, O mighty David, but why didst thou allow this loony to ramble on and on for what seemed like forever without smiting him liketh the kicking thouset gavest to the Meir-ites and the Greer-ites and all the other savage weird-ites from Land of U-Folo-Gee?"
3. "Getteth thou this straight," spake David to the assembled (and frankly pungent) Caste of Para. "This is my smiting and I will smite when I want to. I might smite quickly or I might smite slowly liketh unto the cat when it playest with its prey. Now fetch me a muffin. All that smiting hast given me a right hunger."
4. And there was great feasting throughout the Land.
fencejumper
Paranormal Novice
My gut reaction at the onset of the show was to dismiss Marzulli's ideas because of my aversion to religious dogma. Then I realized this must be exactly how most people feel when they hear serious UFO discussion. It was an insightful moment that I need to be cautious about becoming entrenched in my own beliefs. I made a conscious effort to listen with an open mind, and evaluate his credibility after he made his case.
With that perspective, I actually enjoyed the episode. I was expecting a trainwreck for this interview, but it was much better. Marzulli has interesting theories. He takes too many intellectual leaps for my taste. All the same, I disagree with folks that are dismissive because he mentions the Bible and religion. There are nuggets of truth in there when corroborated with other sources. My problem with Marzulli is he presents his interpretations as evidence too often. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but certainly doesn't make him right. Big claims with shaky support.
With that perspective, I actually enjoyed the episode. I was expecting a trainwreck for this interview, but it was much better. Marzulli has interesting theories. He takes too many intellectual leaps for my taste. All the same, I disagree with folks that are dismissive because he mentions the Bible and religion. There are nuggets of truth in there when corroborated with other sources. My problem with Marzulli is he presents his interpretations as evidence too often. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but certainly doesn't make him right. Big claims with shaky support.
LA is a sheister and a con-man, like lot of folks. The evidence I offer for my observation is this: He on 3 separate occasions in the podcast said he "has problems with religion and christianity" in the context that he is skeptical about religion, then twice he says he's a born-again christian. So, at best, he's a hypocrite who doubts his own faith. At worst he's a charlatan who pretends to believe something he doesn't for ends that only he knows (Money from the publishing and lecture circuit?).
You cannot stand by and decry religion and seconds later aspouse your undying faith in it. LA tries to do just that and ends up looking like a complete moron.
I think that he feels that disclosure is going to happen soon and he's trying to positioning himself to be the next L. Ron Hubbard. He's got a problem though... he needs a lot more money
.
You cannot stand by and decry religion and seconds later aspouse your undying faith in it. LA tries to do just that and ends up looking like a complete moron.
I think that he feels that disclosure is going to happen soon and he's trying to positioning himself to be the next L. Ron Hubbard. He's got a problem though... he needs a lot more money
.
threed
Skilled Investigator
Having grown up in a similar, whacked-out worldview (and come out from under it), I think I have an insight into what he thinks he's doing. Christians have created their own alternative reality where they can uniquely earn brownie points that set them apart from others (while claiming to love them). They are very aggressive (as history demonstrates).
He feels he has a special commission to go into the paranormal world and witness for Jesus. In his odd way, he is a missionary to the UFO field. He speaks your lingo and will attempt to convert you (thinking that the light he shines on you will somehow convince you).
This is all very tiresome after two thousand years. I wish we could move on to some new campfire story. In a way, I hope ET (or other dimensionals or whatever) would show up and undermine our culture (like we did the Native Americans'). Then, at least, we could finally get some new story material.
He feels he has a special commission to go into the paranormal world and witness for Jesus. In his odd way, he is a missionary to the UFO field. He speaks your lingo and will attempt to convert you (thinking that the light he shines on you will somehow convince you).
This is all very tiresome after two thousand years. I wish we could move on to some new campfire story. In a way, I hope ET (or other dimensionals or whatever) would show up and undermine our culture (like we did the Native Americans'). Then, at least, we could finally get some new story material.
No need to apologize for th show David! It is what it is and I actually thought it was an interesting show. I'm actually glad it was salvaged at the hour point when he was about to hang up..but guests like this are who they are, so I kept an open mind. It wasn't so bad, but I agree that he kind of seems to easily explain everything and combine Aliens are angels, UFOs to ghosts with events from 2,000 years to now pretty easily is just... out there. I wating for David's George Noory impersonation "Maybe they are Angels!" <george noory="" voice=""> 
He did make some thought provoking suggestions, not that they are entirely believable, but referencing the bible as a sort if intro to the paranormal makes sense in a way. I sort of think it not to be taken at a literal sense at all, but there is something to it to think about in way that's more unconventional. I agree that some things in the bible are just not believable. However, other stuff does seem to at least described 1,000's of years ago to be or paranormal/or supernatural origin, even if we look at it today. It's not the only ancient text that references the paranormal even ET's, so I don't see why the bible should not be seen in that sense. For example, we have RV's on the message board that even David is impressed by..so what makes us think such people didn't exist 1,000's of years ago as prophets aren't RV's in a way?
Also what the deal with just hating on Christianity or beleiving that supernatural or paranormal events, alien visitation could not have happened and described in the bible 1,000s of years ago as they perceived it? It's just annoying how just mentioning Christianity becomes a deal breaker in a discussion and then it goes downhill. I would expect somone who has seen a UFO, ghosts or aliens, or whatever would have more of an open mind, but when it comes to Jesus and the Bible, they are out of the question. Im not a hard core Christian by any means, but I can't help to notice that undertone in the show at times.
Also, I just really think that comment that "millions of people were killed under the guise of Christianity" is played out by now. The Jesus story was before Christianity even developed into a world wide religion so the Crusades really don't deter me from taking the Bible somewhat seriously like it does for others. To me the fact is that "the Church" used religion an excuse for misguided humans killed millions of other humans under the guise of God's word. Just like Nazi' killing jews for their purposes or other religions that exist today that do the same in the name of Allah. I'm personally past that notion that it discredits an entire religion. We can read anything and perceive it in a negative way though to harm someone or just to follow orders, or just follow wrong actions thinking they are justified by God or a cult leader. It's human behavior, it's our fault, not religion.
I thought it was great that the Paracast finally at least mentioned the Shroud of Turin and even glad to hear that David is on the fence on it.. .. I think this is something that is really interesting. I hope you guys do a show on that with an open mind and listen to the facts..Much like the UFO field it has debunkers and believers, but from what I've read there is truly something special here where science meets the supernatural.. Christian's belief do not hinge on the authenticity of the shroud, but it seems that that the debunkers are almost rabidly against it simlar to UFO debunkers..and it wasn't a Leonardo DaVinci hoax that did it either as many would think. I just hope they find a knowledgeable & scientific minded person to interview for the show.</george>
He did make some thought provoking suggestions, not that they are entirely believable, but referencing the bible as a sort if intro to the paranormal makes sense in a way. I sort of think it not to be taken at a literal sense at all, but there is something to it to think about in way that's more unconventional. I agree that some things in the bible are just not believable. However, other stuff does seem to at least described 1,000's of years ago to be or paranormal/or supernatural origin, even if we look at it today. It's not the only ancient text that references the paranormal even ET's, so I don't see why the bible should not be seen in that sense. For example, we have RV's on the message board that even David is impressed by..so what makes us think such people didn't exist 1,000's of years ago as prophets aren't RV's in a way?
Also what the deal with just hating on Christianity or beleiving that supernatural or paranormal events, alien visitation could not have happened and described in the bible 1,000s of years ago as they perceived it? It's just annoying how just mentioning Christianity becomes a deal breaker in a discussion and then it goes downhill. I would expect somone who has seen a UFO, ghosts or aliens, or whatever would have more of an open mind, but when it comes to Jesus and the Bible, they are out of the question. Im not a hard core Christian by any means, but I can't help to notice that undertone in the show at times.
Also, I just really think that comment that "millions of people were killed under the guise of Christianity" is played out by now. The Jesus story was before Christianity even developed into a world wide religion so the Crusades really don't deter me from taking the Bible somewhat seriously like it does for others. To me the fact is that "the Church" used religion an excuse for misguided humans killed millions of other humans under the guise of God's word. Just like Nazi' killing jews for their purposes or other religions that exist today that do the same in the name of Allah. I'm personally past that notion that it discredits an entire religion. We can read anything and perceive it in a negative way though to harm someone or just to follow orders, or just follow wrong actions thinking they are justified by God or a cult leader. It's human behavior, it's our fault, not religion.
I thought it was great that the Paracast finally at least mentioned the Shroud of Turin and even glad to hear that David is on the fence on it.. .. I think this is something that is really interesting. I hope you guys do a show on that with an open mind and listen to the facts..Much like the UFO field it has debunkers and believers, but from what I've read there is truly something special here where science meets the supernatural.. Christian's belief do not hinge on the authenticity of the shroud, but it seems that that the debunkers are almost rabidly against it simlar to UFO debunkers..and it wasn't a Leonardo DaVinci hoax that did it either as many would think. I just hope they find a knowledgeable & scientific minded person to interview for the show.</george>
rwahrens
Skilled Investigator
I'm almost like the guys that wanted to run screaming from the room at about the 30 minute mark.
Unfortunately, it was on my iPhone, and it would have followed me out of the room! No help there...
I was willing to listen, tho. Everybody deserves their chance at that famous 15 minutes. But you've gotta be honest, and this guy is anything but.
He lost me at his use of the bible to prove his prophesies.
First of all, his timelines are all screwed up. Yes, Jerusalem WAS destroyed in 70 CE. But the documents that claim to "prophesy" that destruction are almost universally agreed by honest biblical scholars to have been written at least twenty and possibly as much as 50 years after the fact.
The location where the casting out of demons took place is thirty miles from the Sea of Galilee! Quite a long haul for those demon infested pigs to run before drowning! Plus, THAT document wasn't written until the mid second century, and reflects the ignorance of the authors of the local Palestinian geography. None of the "disciples" would have made that mistake!
Additionally, where he takes his major prophesies - the Book of Revelations according to John - wasn't canonized until the thirteenth century! It seems that even the RCC had its doubts about THAT one! And yes, it was largely about the Roman Empire - quite the local concern at the time.
I agree that a few of his ideas are worthy of further investigation, but only after we dump the religion. I mean, really, he even hit on abortion!
Nut-job. :
Unfortunately, it was on my iPhone, and it would have followed me out of the room! No help there...
I was willing to listen, tho. Everybody deserves their chance at that famous 15 minutes. But you've gotta be honest, and this guy is anything but.
He lost me at his use of the bible to prove his prophesies.
First of all, his timelines are all screwed up. Yes, Jerusalem WAS destroyed in 70 CE. But the documents that claim to "prophesy" that destruction are almost universally agreed by honest biblical scholars to have been written at least twenty and possibly as much as 50 years after the fact.
The location where the casting out of demons took place is thirty miles from the Sea of Galilee! Quite a long haul for those demon infested pigs to run before drowning! Plus, THAT document wasn't written until the mid second century, and reflects the ignorance of the authors of the local Palestinian geography. None of the "disciples" would have made that mistake!
Additionally, where he takes his major prophesies - the Book of Revelations according to John - wasn't canonized until the thirteenth century! It seems that even the RCC had its doubts about THAT one! And yes, it was largely about the Roman Empire - quite the local concern at the time.
I agree that a few of his ideas are worthy of further investigation, but only after we dump the religion. I mean, really, he even hit on abortion!
Nut-job. :
AnnetteMarie
Skilled Investigator
I have thought about how the Bible could be explained in modern times, and so far, there is much of it that can be re-created by modern technology. We can cure lepers now, some types of blindness, bring the apparently dead back to life, and of course, the marvels of in-vitro fertilization, allowing any virgin who is fertile, to become pregnant.
not 100% on the fishes and bread bit, but if we apply our technology to the miracles, and the rest of the chapters, how does it read then?
whatever, it was interesting, although I was a bit nervous at the point of the hanging up threat. I do think a lot of old text, stories, legends, etcetera, would benefit from a fresh and critical look with the aim of providing possible ways and means to re-create them using our technology. Who is to say that Mary wasn't impregnated with an in-vitro? a few hundred years ago that would not have been imagined, but nowadays it is one of the first answers for infertile couples anxious to have their own wee bairns...
Despite the messenger, there is a message somewhere in all this that needs to be examined. Sometimes, if you shoot the messenger, it makes it a bit easier to translate the message.
my thoughts, not to be taken as gospel, not to be used in a court of law, and definitely not to be used to start yet another religion... 8)
not 100% on the fishes and bread bit, but if we apply our technology to the miracles, and the rest of the chapters, how does it read then?
whatever, it was interesting, although I was a bit nervous at the point of the hanging up threat. I do think a lot of old text, stories, legends, etcetera, would benefit from a fresh and critical look with the aim of providing possible ways and means to re-create them using our technology. Who is to say that Mary wasn't impregnated with an in-vitro? a few hundred years ago that would not have been imagined, but nowadays it is one of the first answers for infertile couples anxious to have their own wee bairns...
Despite the messenger, there is a message somewhere in all this that needs to be examined. Sometimes, if you shoot the messenger, it makes it a bit easier to translate the message.
my thoughts, not to be taken as gospel, not to be used in a court of law, and definitely not to be used to start yet another religion... 8)
DavidRavenMoon
anonymous anomalous
I agree, I mean first off you shouldn't interpret anything in the Bible. Of course some of it doesn't make too much sense, but you can thank the people who have mistranslated and edited the thing over the years ... and then still it's just a collection of disparate books. Any interpretation would probably be wrong.
If you want to take things at face value, which might be the best way to do it, then you have to realize these people didn't understand what was going on anymore than if a jet fighter landed on their lawn. A lot of it always seemed like fairy tales, but there is some interesting anomalous moments. My wife was raised as a Jehovah's Witness, and their Bible is a lot more interesting.
He also has the whole fallen angel thing wrong. They were cast out because they wanted to help the humans. In the pagan religions, they taught the humans magic. Even Satan, if you really read up on the character, didn't do anything bad, but was maligned because he disagreed with "god"... once more about helping humans. So everyone was told don't listen to this guy, he's bad. After all, Lucifer means "light giver", as in enlighten. It could be taken as the whole idea that we were once "property" and some of these beings disagreed with the whole situation.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but I started studying these mythologies in the mid 70s and started to notice that they all link together... all the cultures seem to have the same stories. If you start thinking that the "gods" where beings that came from the sky (heavens), and wanted us to serve them, then it makes some sense.
He also got the whole "anti Christ" thing wrong... the later Dead Sea scrolls had keys to translating the scrolls (they were kind of in code) and the correct translation is "anti priest" and that was Jesus, who was against the priests at the time because they were corrupt. You would think someone into theology would be up on this stuff.
Also, I really agreed when David brought up the thing about the shrimp fishermen. That's such an appalling practice.
I found this particular podcast hard to listen to. I have to respectfully say this guy was a bozo.
DavidRavenMoon
anonymous anomalous
She was not a "virgin" as in she didn't have sex with her husband.
They belonged to a particular Jewish sect (who's name a don't recall at the moment) and couples would get married twice. The first time was like a trail marriage to see how well they get a long, but they would abstain from sex. After a certain amount of time, or if they couldn't wait, and had sex already, the priest would marry them the second time, for good.
So the women in this sect, when they were married for the first time, were called something that translates to either "nun" or "virgin", meaning they were chaste.
So all that happened was she got pregnant in the normal fashion, but before she was "married" the second time.
The virgin birth mythology is actually quite common in other older religions, however. But most of the things in Christianity were "borrowed" from other religions, such as aligning the holy days to coincide with "pagan" holy days, such as Sunday for the sabbath. Now you can see where rabbits and eggs (fertility symbols) ended up associated with easter, and evergreen trees and mistletoe ended up associated with Christmas. All Hallowed (Saint's) Eve and jack-o-lanterns?
AnnetteMarie
Skilled Investigator
methshin
Japans Underground Robot Army
Well, I listened to it twice, and though his theories were interesting enough, I find that when you cite the same literature Dan Brown does to write his fiction, you dig yourself into a deep whole.
The guy kept asking rhetorical questions to which he was just trying to lure people into agreeing with them without them even knowing it. Although he kept saying that it was "his opinion", he also kept saying "I know" this, and "this will happen", and "prophecy" which leads me to assume that he was only saying it was his opinion to backpeddle out of the shitstorm he created in the first 45 minutes.
What did peak my interest was the fact he shot off in the last 30 seconds of the show regarding the shroud of turin. Why wouldn't you open with something like that, I mean, I was under the impression that this thing had been carbon dated to the 14th century, and now you're trying to tell me it has been redone and that the dating matches the time period of Christ? That's one hell of a statement to make at the very end of an episode, likely one that was planted just to have us visit his website or some shit for more details.
I don't trust the guy.
The guy kept asking rhetorical questions to which he was just trying to lure people into agreeing with them without them even knowing it. Although he kept saying that it was "his opinion", he also kept saying "I know" this, and "this will happen", and "prophecy" which leads me to assume that he was only saying it was his opinion to backpeddle out of the shitstorm he created in the first 45 minutes.
What did peak my interest was the fact he shot off in the last 30 seconds of the show regarding the shroud of turin. Why wouldn't you open with something like that, I mean, I was under the impression that this thing had been carbon dated to the 14th century, and now you're trying to tell me it has been redone and that the dating matches the time period of Christ? That's one hell of a statement to make at the very end of an episode, likely one that was planted just to have us visit his website or some shit for more details.
I don't trust the guy.
aNorthernSoul
Professional Breather
I bought one of his books, and it was alright. I am in no way a believer in any formal religion but I do find some insight into reading the old texts. That being said, I enjoyed the interview, and apart from the minor clash where the interviewer was scared of being aligned to another's dogma it was all good. It was a little disheartening that he didn't get into some of the real data/actual research he's done interviewing abductees, but oh well.
I found it to be a very interesting show on many levels. I believe that L.A. is an honest type and truly believes in what he's propagating. Is he without a doubt correct in his belief? Who knows and only time will tell ... I will check on his claim that evoking the name of Jesus has stopped abductions. If that's really true we would have a major new insight.
The show also exposed a conundrum for me re dB. How can he constantly question somebody's firm belief system when he, admittedly, doesn't "know" anything about the UFO phenomenon except for some "clues"? I don't think we have any kind of baseline established for the phenomenon. So who is wrong and who is right? IMHO all bets are off at this point. I sometimes feel that dB's ego gets in the way of his brilliance.
Having said that, I really respect dB and Gene. I think they brought a new level of excellence and depth to the field that other shows can only wish for.
I also regret that dB chose to leave this forum. My short and few exchanges with him were always refreshing and inspiring.
The show also exposed a conundrum for me re dB. How can he constantly question somebody's firm belief system when he, admittedly, doesn't "know" anything about the UFO phenomenon except for some "clues"? I don't think we have any kind of baseline established for the phenomenon. So who is wrong and who is right? IMHO all bets are off at this point. I sometimes feel that dB's ego gets in the way of his brilliance.
Having said that, I really respect dB and Gene. I think they brought a new level of excellence and depth to the field that other shows can only wish for.
I also regret that dB chose to leave this forum. My short and few exchanges with him were always refreshing and inspiring.
Schuyler
Misanthrope
Posts like this are why David needs a breather from the forum. They just make-me-want-to-SCREAM!! 
knowing there are people who actually take guys like this seriously.
The guy was an asshat, pure and simple. His internal inconistencies were legion and the way he treated his interviewers was with arrogance and condescension and was truly pathetic given his own ignorance of the Bible he professes to believe. I don't even want to waste my time with a chapter & verse critique of his statements becuase, frankly, it's not worth the energy.
David and Gene exhibited extreme patience well above and beyond the call of duty. I commend them for their professionalism in handling him. David, in particular given his task, exhibited a great deal of restraint. When I hear something like this that says his ego got in the way I am left wondering if you listened to the same show I did. I think they let him off easy and he CERTAINLY is not worth a return visit.
knowing there are people who actually take guys like this seriously. The guy was an asshat, pure and simple. His internal inconistencies were legion and the way he treated his interviewers was with arrogance and condescension and was truly pathetic given his own ignorance of the Bible he professes to believe. I don't even want to waste my time with a chapter & verse critique of his statements becuase, frankly, it's not worth the energy.
David and Gene exhibited extreme patience well above and beyond the call of duty. I commend them for their professionalism in handling him. David, in particular given his task, exhibited a great deal of restraint. When I hear something like this that says his ego got in the way I am left wondering if you listened to the same show I did. I think they let him off easy and he CERTAINLY is not worth a return visit.