Why isn't The Raelian Message taken more seriously?

Because they've made themselves out to be frauds, what with the whole 'we have a human clone' debacle and selling 'cloning equipment' on their website.

Granted, any religion has 'weird' ideas for people not in it, and the Raelians don't seem to be violent, perverted or dangerous, but they do appear to be frauds and liars.

I can give you answers too, for free..... I can explain things as well, but it involves an open mind, the truth does not come with a price.

"Reject marriage, which is only the public proclamation of ownership of a person. A man or woman cannot be the property of anyone else. Any contract can only destroy the harmony existing between two individuals."

What hogwash. A husband or wife does not own the other. It's a commitment to eachother, and God if you so wish to include him/her/it. These people have a real warped sense in my opinion, of just about everything.

It's an illusion, my friend. It's not a true commitment when the law of man interferes. Love is love, and it meant to be given freely without restrictions. A contract is not love, but a death sentence. Think of all the statistics of marriages going the pits because of cheating, lying, or abuse. It's not right. It shouldn't be this way. There IS a better way of bringing two people in love without law to reside.

Bottom line is they have no more "proof" for their stance or beliefs then any other religion does. It still remains for all...an article of faith.

As Rael points out, his stand is not about faith, but to understand. People who have beliefs do not understand. It is about looking ahead, a new awakening for the human race.

Believe whatever you want. When I have an issue is when groups or people attack others beliefs. Raelians can state what they want to, and so can every other "religion", why they have to argue whats right and wrong is beyond me.

Sorry, but who's attacking who? Are you accusing Rael of attacking someone's beliefs? On the contrary, he welcomes it if you happen to be happy with it. It is your choice, but for those who want a deeper understanding of the universe, consciousness, man's origins and where we can take it, then that's a good place to start.

Sounds more like...."My God can beat up your God"...friggin pointless.

You have your own doubts, many I believe, so I understand where this emotion is coming from. But the reality is, that's not what's being said. At all!

Originally posted by eudaimonia

"Reject marriage, which is only the public proclamation of ownership of a person. A man or woman cannot be the property of anyone else. Any contract can only destroy the harmony existing between two individuals."

What hogwash. A husband or wife does not own the other. It's a commitment to eachother, and God if you so wish to include him/her/it. These people have a real warped sense in my opinion, of just about everything.

It's an illusion, my friend. It's not a true commitment when the law of man interferes.

Thought of contributing to this thread then saw this.

*Thinks of the Micheal Jackson case*

Sad.

Personally, I'm pulling for the law of man here.

'Be careful if $$ is involved in any teaching or account'
Anyone could write a book for $$.........

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
I just watched one video and think WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So they want us to build an embassy for them on international waters because they are not invading us. Ok first sign of trust??? maybe not to take sides???

Where will the embassy be located??? How long before total disclosure??? Will they tell us what the hell is going on soon??? (I theorize 2012 a good time)

There is alot of speculation from people about money, they are a non-profit organization. Hold on, how are you going to build an embassy with no money???

Are they serious????!!!!!!!

They do not give signs of them putting harm to us, so why not go along with it until its proven wrong??? Build the embassy building then hope they come from the sky, how do we tell them its ready???

I have often speculated on ufo's but this is a completly different zone. They single handedly wiped out religion, what with the bright star and three wise men etc. etc. and using extracts from the holy books.

WITHOUT DOUBT you have got my attention!!!

Seriously though the catholic church def. do not like these people!!!!!!!

Well, it seems we have the first likely candidate that will take this a little more seriously than the rest here lol

Nothing has been proven wrong, your correct. So my question is, why begin to attack without even looking at all his work first?

Just to be a little off topic, it's interesting how in this video Rael points out the destructive behavior that George W. Bush and his administration have towards the country. He even points out Farhenheit 9/11! (A plus for me, by the way haha)

www.rael.org...

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by eudaimonia

"Reject marriage, which is only the public proclamation of ownership of a person. A man or woman cannot be the property of anyone else. Any contract can only destroy the harmony existing between two individuals."

What hogwash. A husband or wife does not own the other. It's a commitment to eachother, and God if you so wish to include him/her/it. These people have a real warped sense in my opinion, of just about everything.

It's an illusion, my friend. It's not a true commitment when the law of man interferes.

Thought of contributing to this thread then saw this.

*Thinks of the Micheal Jackson case*

Sad.

Personally, I'm pulling for the law of man here.

Screw the politics E, I'm not buying Rael's crap AND I'm not buying Bush's either. How about an answer to this post?

Log off again if you feel like it, I'm not going anywhere.

Originally posted by Nygdan
they do appear to be frauds and liars.

In what way do they appear as frauds and liars? If you can convince me, I'd love to hear it.

Originally posted by eudaimonia

Originally posted by Nygdan
they do appear to be frauds and liars.

In what way do they appear as frauds and liars? If you can convince me, I'd love to hear it.

I can help you out here:

www.rickross.com...

www.rickross.com...

www.wwrn.org...

I've left that window open, do you want more links?

Guess you've got to jump up and down to get a Raelians attention.

BTW, what's with giving attention to your "ass"?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by eudaimonia

"Reject marriage, which is only the public proclamation of ownership of a person. A man or woman cannot be the property of anyone else. Any contract can only destroy the harmony existing between two individuals."

What hogwash. A husband or wife does not own the other. It's a commitment to eachother, and God if you so wish to include him/her/it. These people have a real warped sense in my opinion, of just about everything.

It's an illusion, my friend. It's not a true commitment when the law of man interferes.

Thought of contributing to this thread then saw this.

*Thinks of the Micheal Jackson case*

Sad.

Personally, I'm pulling for the law of man here.

Screw the politics E, I'm not buying Rael's crap AND I'm not buying Bush's either. How about an answer to this post?

Log off again if you feel like it, I'm not going anywhere.

I haven't logged off, if that's what your trying to imply there. And sorry, but I don't know where your coming from in this particular response. If you want my opinion on the politics side of it, then okay. I don't believe a word Bush says either, but to compare him or even put him in the same sentence with Rael is totally wrong. As a matter of fact, Rael strongly disagrees with everything the Bush Adminstration believes in, from policies to ethics.

Can you please give me the connection between the law of man that deals with marriage and the one that deals with the michael jackson case? I'd be very interested to see how there's any similiarties here.

I posted this video link above, and i think it was just a coincidence that you mentioned Bush the same time I posted a response to the other user.

Listen, and give feedback.
www.rael.org...

An attempt to discredit the idea of a God. Yes. What is the problem with that? Do you realize that an unseen omniscient God (singular) who sits on a cloud with a long white beard and a book on his side listing who's bad and who's naughty is completely preposterous? Not to mention illogical. The majority of people today believe this interpretation, and have perverted it's meaning by using that image and marketing it to basically sell a lie.

Byrd has meticulously shown that Rael is faith--not science-based.

However, if you find enlightenment in it, by all means continue practicing it. I give my applause to any religion/sect/cult that urges peace and love, such as you claim Rael does. But if someone already has a belief system they are happy with, please don't try to enforce yours upon them.

Well, I've started reading "The Encounter" (It's interesting reading about the 'ET's')

And, judging from the typos in the book, I can say I don't buy it =/

For instance: "Publically" is written "Publicly" =/

-wD

Originally posted by eudaimonia
Can you please give me the connection between the law of man that deals with marriage and the one that deals with the michael jackson case? I'd be very interested to see how there's any similiarties here.

You were the one to get rid of the "law of man". Seems obvious that you support "alternative" lifestyles. I think people with real alternative lifestyles might want to have a talk with you for giving them a bad name.

I posted this video link above, and i think it was just a coincidence that you mentioned Bush the same time I posted a response to the other user.

Once again it was you that tried to pull the politics card:

Originally posted by eudaimonia
Just to be a little off topic, it's interesting how in this video Rael points out the destructive behavior that George W. Bush and his administration have towards the country. He even points out Farhenheit 9/11! (A plus for me, by the way haha)

Personally I think both Bush and Rael are full of #. If I had to pick though, VIVA LE BUSH.

Listen, and give feedback.
www.rael.org...

This is why I'm going to petition for your expulsion, you are only here to recruit, which is against the T&C.

Check it out, you broke 2 of these:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm putting this right out there, no BS.

[edit on 14-4-2005 by intrepid]

I will point out a few things that might clear the air...
Raels religion is just taking the urantia book, and making himself a prophet.
There is no trick to it... He is using well founded and adaptable religions to "fill" his own.
His is no worse and perhaps no better than other religions that do the same thing... like.... christianity, judiasm, islam, buddist, mormon...

but what is the "real" religion...
the answer: The mormons... yes the mormons were right... everyone else is going to hell...(southpark)

he has created a solid belief system, and a fairly admirable collection of followers, but one thing is lacking that could make it all very believable...

that is:
If they want Rael to enlighten the world (why else would they tell him the truth) , then why don't they just make a nice appearance outside some public event with millions watching and let some nice folks take some pics and video... (kinda like the eclipse in mexico) maybe shake a few hands...

no need to set an embassy to do this, but it would sure get an embassy built for them fast... (every nation in the world would pitch in for it)
hell, we would probably gold plate it for them...

Originally posted by intrepid
You were the one to get rid of the "law of man". Seems obvious that you support "alternative" lifestyles. I think people with real alternative lifestyles might want to have a talk with you for giving them a bad name.

.

I honestly do not understand where your coming from!

Once again it was you that tried to pull the politics card:

Personally I think both Bush and Rael are full of #. If I had to pick though, VIVA LE BUSH.

intrepid, It shocks me to here this. But if you truly believe that it's better to side with Bush than Rael (mind you, these are the only two individuals we've mentioned), well, that's where you stand and I completely disagree with that.

This is why I'm going to petition for your expulsion, you are only here to recruit, which is against the T&C.

Check it out, you broke 2 of these:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm putting this right out there, no BS.

I don't know why you are starting to become a little defensive here. It's really unnecessary! I have read the T&C and I haven't found one that I broke. You've got 20, point out exactly which number please.

If your accusing me of recruiting, you've got it all wrong. I am not trying to convince, but to INFORM. I think providing a link here and there to have others listen before attacking without the right information seems appropriate to me. I wanted others to share their opinions, not their pledges. There isn't a trace in the thread that even remotely tries to that.

Regarding your observation that I've used the ""...not sure what you mean by this, do you mean quoting? Is there a limit to the use of this? If so, I rarely have used it in this whole thread.

Originally posted by eudaimonia
If your accusing me of recruiting, you've got it all wrong. I am not trying to convince, but to INFORM.

REALLY?

Originally posted by eudaimonia
Listen, and give feedback.
www.rael.org...

That doesn't seem like recuiting to you?

The 2 rules I was talking about were, and you've already got this one ,

9.) You will not advertise or promote other discussion boards, chat systems, online communities or other websites on ATS within posts or signature without prior written permission from me (Simon Gray). Your will not choose a username that is the same as website domain, subdomain, or URL for which you are associated. You will not use ATS to bash other boards or engage in so-called "board wars".

12.) You agree not to cultivate the membership of the AboveTopSecret.com discussion boards for the sending of private messages (board U2U or e-mail) for the purposes of marketing, mass mailing, or recruitment for other groups (offline or online) such as activist groups or other online discussion board websites. You will not also seek to rally the membership of the AboveTopSecret.com discussion board for any cause withouot prior written permission from the site owner.

M'kay?

Bueller, Bueller, Bueller.

BTW, I'm Canadian mate, I saw the expose. Posted some already. Have MORE.

I'm tired.

Nodding, nodding............

Just kidding.

Originally posted by intrepid
That doesn't seem like recuiting to you?

I asked for feedback, how is that recruiting? People can come back saying, What a load of crap! or they can come back saying, "Well, that was interesting", or they can come back saying , "You know, he's got a point". I don't really care which particular group you fall in, all I was trying to do was to present related information that was discussed prior. It dealt with law and morality.

The 2 rules I was talking about were, and you've already got this one

,

9.) You will not advertise or promote other discussion boards, chat systems, online communities or other websites on ATS within posts or signature without prior written permission from me (Simon Gray). Your will not choose a username that is the same as website domain, subdomain, or URL for which you are associated. You will not use ATS to bash other boards or engage in so-called "board wars".

12.) You agree not to cultivate the membership of the AboveTopSecret.com discussion boards for the sending of private messages (board U2U or e-mail) for the purposes of marketing, mass mailing, or recruitment for other groups (offline or online) such as activist groups or other online discussion board websites. You will not also seek to rally the membership of the AboveTopSecret.com discussion board for any cause withouot prior written permission from the site owner.

Number 9. Well, I was unaware that I needed permission for links. Didn't think it was such a big deal, but apparently it is. I personally don't think it makes sense, unless the link depicts something graphic or inappropriate in any way shape or form, then I would understand! This is starting to become a major censorship issue for no valid reason at all! It's interesting how the term board wars is included, are you saying I've started a war? In my opinion, I've tried to get people here to share their thoughts, not to engage in a fight.

Number 12. Recruitment? No. You've misunderstood me, as many others here in thread have as well.


It's really a shame that this kind of miscommunication is turning out to brush away the real discussion that I was trying to get rolling from the very start.

Originally posted by eudaimonia
It's really a shame that this kind of miscommunication is turning out to brush away the real discussion that I was trying to get rolling from the very start.

Exactly!

Sorry if this has been said, this is a long thread, and I'm in a bit of a hurry, but,

Isnt this the guy that says if you have a beard aliens will use it as a radio antenna?