Gods of Eden Discussion

[loseyourname]

Anyone else ready? I've read the first ten chapters.

[spiral]

How in the world did you find time to read ten chapters already?

[loseyourname]

I did it last night. It's a quick read.

[antihippy]

I started, but haven't gotten ten chapters in yet. It's interesting.

[Anonymouse]

Okay, can we take this chapter by chapter or would that be difficult? I mean the things the author unearths from beginning to wherever you have read. If you have read the first 10, stop there. Let others catch up.

[loseyourname]

I say we do it ten chapters at a time. There are forty, so we could do ten each week and make it last a month. Each chapter is really short, so it should be about right. I think the first ten are about 110 pages. Small pages, though.

[Anonymouse]

Okay, ten chapters at a time sounds good. It should be good. With that said, let's open this discussion.

What do you think of the author in Chapter 1 when he states, "War can be its own valuable commodity". or, "War can be an effective tool for maintaining social and political control over a large population"?

Moreover, what do you think of the source he attributes it to? The "gods" that came down and gave civilization to man? Or the case he makes for UFOs?

[loseyourname]

Well, he doesn't really make a case for the existence of extraterrestial life. He even says that the book is written for an audience that already holds a belief that they exist. Certainly, you must at least believe it's a possibility. The case he makes for the intervention in ancient civilizations is really a very cursory one. For the most part, he just refers to the much more detailed research of other men, in particular Sitchin. You and Dan and I come in here with an advantage in that we have read Sitchin (I think sleuth might have, too), but for those who haven't, this will sound a lot more far-fetched than it really is.

As far as war being a political commodity, well, that's nothing new. Even without resorting to violence, party politics tends to stratify citizens along ideological lines so that they will never unite to actually get anything done. In cases of overt war, well, just look to the current situation in Iraq. The Sunnis can't agree with the Shiites or the Kurds, the women can't agree with the men, secularists can't agree with Islamic fundamentalists, and now Christian missionaries have even come in. All the while, they forget that they are all Iraqis, and that Americans are basically in complete control of their future, and almost certainly will control their future.

World War II is a brilliant example of war being used as an economic commodity. US banks funded both sides leading up the conflict, and US manufacturers continued to both sell armaments and artillery to the allies once the way had begun. FDR even got around the fact that this had made illegal through the lend-lease program. This is particularly telling, because most Americans and even most congressman wanted nothing to do with this war, but their voices were drowned out by the voices of men who were more powerful, and it inevitably seems that the war-mongering, power-hungry have the more powerful voices and the more say. One can draw a parallel here with the conflicts pointed out by Bramley amongst the custodial race itself. There were many benevolent forces; they don't seem to be an overwhelmingly evil species, but the will of those who would look at their fellow sentient beings as a commodity rather than as peers is the stronger will.

[Anonymouse]

Whether the case he makes is cursory or not, depends in large part, to our idea of what we expect from the book, and our previously held beliefs of how the world is, i.e. our worldview. With that said, I personally believe the author makes a very good case of extraterrestrial intervention, given whatever the little bits and pieces of evidence that we have from ancient texts. When put together in the manner that he has, they speak in unison.

For example, he makes a case for UFOs and their rather early appearance in history. We can look at many references and see references to what appear to be UFOs. For example, in my readings of Einhard's The Life of Charlemagne I couldn't help but notice a reference to what appeared to be a UFO, or a comet. But it's also important to note that back then people labeled everything as comets or asteroids or "mysterious bright lights", etc. When I read a historical account of the black death by a Frenchman, Jean de Venette, I couldn't help but notice references to "bright rays" over Paris. This, along with the many references to UFOs in artwork. The question is, do UFOs exist? Is there enough information to show them all as hoaxes or delusions and hallucinations that have practical explanations? Even Bramley admits that most are hoaxes, but then there is that 1%...

For example, the best website I can refer you to about UFO Artwork is the page of Mathew Hurley:

http://www.ufoartwork.com/

This book that we are reading, much like Sitchin's and van Daneken's has been smeared and rejected because much of what it says is contrary to what we know in orthodoxy. I don't find it coincidental that when someone publishes something like this, they are marginalized and victims of smear campaigns or delusional.

[Anonymouse]

Furthermore, Bramley states:

"Many thinkers, however, have erroneously equated all human motives with motives found in the animal kingdom. This is a mistake because intelligence breeds complexity"

"It is easy to understand the mental stimuli in two alley cats squabbling over a scrap of food, but it would be a mistake to attribute as simple a state of mind to a terrorist planting a bomb in an airport."

So we see that motivation becomes more elaborate with the rise of intelligence, therefore we have to raise our level of thinking to a higher level to see the truth. You stated truthfully in the examples given of how war works to divide people. So when Bramley states this book is for those with already the background and belief in UFOs, to me that just means a higher level of thinking or approaching the problem differently, from a non-orthodox point of view.