If plants were self-aware, would they believe in us?

I was thinking about the limitations plants have compared to us.  Plants are alive and interact with the world in their own way; flowers open their petals towards sunlight and (some) trees lose their leaves in the fall.

Plants do not have eyes though, so they cannot 'see' like we do.  As such, they do not even have a concept of what 'sight' is.  And, unlike a person who was born blind, plants cannot understand spoken language either, so we can't just tell them what 'sight' is.

We walk amongst the plants, yet they cannot 'see' us walking amongst them.  A plant may have some sense of our existence amongst them when we touch them and talk to them (hey, some people say talking to plants makes them grow healthier), but, presumably, they have no idea what we look like or what our intentions are.

So, after thinking about that, I wondered whether or not there could be another sense that we are not even aware of?  A plant would have no concept of sight and no idea there is even a such thing as sight, so what if there is some other type of sense that we have no concept of either?  What all may be going on around us that we are not even aware of?  What if ghosts, earth spirits, extra-terrestrials, demons, angels or any combination of the aforementioned were able to walk among us without us 'seeing' them simply because we do not have the sense needed to 'see' them?  Some people who have a 'sixth sense' are sometimes able to sense the presence of such entities and sometimes even communicate with them on some level.  But what if the sixth sense could be stronger?  And what if there is a seventh sense we do not even have a concept of?

There are some people, who if you tell them there are spirits walking amongst us, they won't believe you.  Makes you wonder that if plants could talk to each other and one plant tried to tell some other plants that some sort of intelligent beings walk amongst them, would the other plants believe it?

Alien Teachers Too?

In a post I wrote titled 'Elusive Aliens: Are They Watchers?', I compared a modern theory suggesting that ET aliens remain elusive because they are merely here to observe us with the story of the Watchers from the Book of Enoch.  The Watchers were angelic beings who were apparently supposed to just 'watch' us.  Eventually, some of the Watchers betrayed their duty and began intermingling with humans.  As I mentioned before, the Book of Enoch says the fallen Watchers taught men things such as cosmetics, building weapons, astrology, and writing.  When I wrote about that in my previous post though, it didn't occur to me at the time to mention that the fallen Watchers teaching men new things bears a resemblance to another modern theory about aliens -- a theory that suggests the rapid advancements in technology over the last century are the result of aliens from an advanced technological society secretly working with governments and people in power to teach them how to develop new technologies (or, alternatively, the government is secretly reverse engineering crashed alien spacecraft).  This also bears resemblance to the ancient Greek story of Prometheus, who defied Zeus and taught men to make fire.

So it seems that the modern theory suggesting aliens are assisting men in developing new technologies is not really all that modern afterall.  Modernized perhaps, but not really a modern concept.

View my original post on this subject here.

Elusive Aliens: Are They Watchers?

The Book of Enoch is an apocryphal text that has been left out of nearly every edition of the Bible today.  However, the book was popular in the 1st century AD, and Jude, author of the canonical text of Jude, even quoted a passage from the Book of Enoch in his epistle.  The book was supposedly written by Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah in Genesis.  Scholars have only been able to date the book to around the 3rd century BC, but this doesn't necessarily mean the book isn't older.  It may also be important to note that Genesis says that God took Enoch, indicating that Enoch may have avoided mortal death altogether.  If so, it's possible he could have written the book later.  And, of course, I also realize the whole book could have just been someone's imagination.  But for the rest of this post at least, we're going to take the stance that the book is at least partially based on truth.

One of the most notable stories in the Book of Enoch is the story of the Watchers.  Here's an excerpt from chapter 6 of the Book of Enoch:

And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. These are their chiefs of tens.

As I've pointed out in previous posts (here and here), the word 'angel' means 'messenger'.  The 'angels' and the 'Watchers' may very well be the same type of entities (or species, whatever term you prefer), but they apparently have different roles in their society.  Some relay messages, some are apparently just supposed to watch.  The fallen Watchers taught men things such as cosmetics, building weapons, writing, and astrology.  The passage above says of the fallen Watchers that "they were in all two hundred."  But does that mean there are only 200 Watchers?  Or does it mean that only 200 Watchers are fallen?  Could there be more Watchers out there?

I've pointed out before some similarities between the elusive 'aliens' of today and the angels and demons spoken of in ancient texts (here, here, here, and here).  In the past, the beings known as 'angels' typically only appeared to certain individuals.  Today, most people never see any aliens.  And last I checked, there is no ancient story of a group of angels descending on the Roman Forum and declaring, "Hey, were those angels people have been talking about all these years," and then shaking hands with the emperor.  Nor have any aliens landed on the White House lawn and shook hands with the President either.  Is it a coincidence that angels and 'aliens' tend to be elusive?

And what about these Watchers?  The Book of Enoch is not the only place that watchers are mentioned; the book of Daniel also mentions watchers (lowercased though, and Daniel does not elaborate about them).  There are those among UFOlogists today who have postulated that the reason aliens are so elusive is because they are merely here to observe.  I wonder how many among those who have considered that theory have considered that the idea that the earth is being observed is a very ancient idea?  Indeed, it seems the ancients thought they were being 'watched' too.  So could the aliens that are allegedly observing us be Watchers?  Could they be Watchers that didn't break the Watcher status quo and have continued to watch throughout the millenia?

The Book of Enoch may be folklore akin to Greek mythology.  But maybe some of these old stories are at least based on truth.  Maybe some of the best evidence for that comes from comparing ancient folklore with some of our modern 'folklore'.

------------------------------------------------
P.S. View an update to this post here.

The Queen of Heaven

Today, the designation 'Queen of Heaven' is often associated with the Virgin Mary.  Historically, the designation has been associated with Isis and Astarte.

In regards to the so-called 'Marian apparitions', it seems to me that the Catholics who claim to have seen the Lady assume she is Mary.  In the accounts that I have read about her, she either refers to herself  as something like 'Lady of the Rosary', or she may not introduce herself at all.  So if she does not specifically introduce herself as the mother of Jesus, why should we assume that she is?

I am not denying that Mary existed; nor am I denying that she gave birth to Jesus.  I'm not denying that she was a virgin either.  The question in my mind is whether or not these so-called Marian apparitions are actually visitations by the spirit of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

What if these apparitions have been appearing for much longer than previously thought?  Could it be that this entity or spirit - whatever you prefer to call her - is the same as Isis?  It's long been thought by mainstream historians that Isis, along with all the other pagan gods and goddesses, is a myth.  Some of the more open minded ones may consider that these ancient pantheons of gods and goddesses were once based on real people that had stories about themselves fabricated or were perhaps fabricated over time.  Fringe historians have suggested that some of the gods and goddesses were aliens or some other type of non-human intelligences.  I tend to think that the gods and goddesses may have once been based on real people, but I can't discount the possibility that the stories are entirely fictional.  But I'm also not closed to the possibility that the pagan gods and goddesses were some sort of aliens, or non-human intelligences - perhaps something akin to angels or fallen angels.  It could be that the pagan pantheons consisted of a combination of any or all three of these viewpoints.

So with that in mind, I can't help but wonder if these apparitions are some sort of non-human intelligent being who has been visiting people for thousands of years.  Maybe she just adapts to the audience.   To the Egyptians, she let them think she was Isis.  To modern Catholics, she lets them think she is Mary.  Mac Tonnies suggested a possibility that the 'aliens' people claim to see today have merely adapted to our cultural expectations.  In the past (and still today, actually), people may have observed such phenomena as gods, angels, fairies, or something else.  Perhaps the aliens are not the scientists with advanced technologies that they are assumed to be; maybe it's just a facade to fit our modern expectations.  The aliens may be something else entirely.  So could it be that this 'Queen of Heaven' (translatable as Queen of the Sky) is doing the same thing?  Does this 'lady' just try to fit the appearance that the viewer(s) would expect?

Catholic traditions that grant Mary her Queen title and divine status come later in history.  The Bible never says that she ascended to heaven and it doesn't say she remained a virgin throughout her lifetime.  In fact, the Bible even makes reference to Mary having other children.  The Catholic version of Mary more closely resembles a pagan goddess than the Mary depicted in the New Testament.   Pagan goddesses of the past were often known by many names and titles, and the alleged apparitions of Mary have many titles too (Lady of the Rosary, Lady of the Pillar, Lady of the Snow, etc).  So the question in my mind remains; are the so-called Marian apparitions actually appearances by Mary?  Or is the apparition actually someone else - perhaps a pagan 'goddess' from the past?  I'm not aware of her ever specifically introducing herself as Mary, but she doesn't deny being Mary either; so does she want people to think she is Mary?  Or does she just not care who they think she is?  Is she content just being called 'Our Lady'?

Of course, skeptics say these apparitions are just hallucinations or hoaxes.  Maybe they are.  But if they are real, I wonder if she is who she is assumed to be.  If she isn't who she is assumed to be, then who - and what - is she?

The Alien - Angel Topic Revisited

I've written about the alien-angel connection before and dedicated a whole post to the topic a while back.

As I stated previously, the phrase 'angel from heaven' translates to 'messenger from the sky'.  But people have been questioning for a long time whether or not extraterrestrials could exist from a religious perspective.

Here is an article I came across today about it.  But the topic isn't something new, people have been questioning the subject for years.

I guess I'm just really surprised that there is some much confusion about this.  I mean, it just seems like such a non-issue!  If an angel from heaven has come to earth from the sky, then technically, you could classify it as a type of extraterrestrial.  This doesn't mean that the traditional concept of an angel is the only type of extraterrestrial life there is - there may very well be grays, reptillians, insectoids and other types of extraterrestrial life - but the point is, by definition of the phrase 'angel from heaven', angels themselves could very well be considered extraterrestrial.  So the whole question as to whether extraterrestrials exist from a religious perspective is like questioning whether or not angels themselves exist.  I suppose it's possible some angels could actually be terrestrial in origin, but if it's an angel that has specifically come from heaven, then technically, it's an extraterrestrial.  I don't think it matters if it is made of flesh and blood or not, a lifeform is still a lifeform.

So why all the hoopla about whether or not extraterrestrials fit into God's universe?  I guess it's somewhat understandable why some people might question from a religious perspective whether or not specific types of alleged ETs such as grays or reptilians exist, but I see no reason why anyone with a religious perspective should question whether or not extraterrestrials exist at all.

The whole debate just seems like a waste of time to me.  It's like spending years trying to decide whether or not we should say the sky is blue, or say the sky appears to be blue.


H/T for the linked article.

The Christmas Story

It seems that every year around Christmas, you can find someone pointing out the pagan origins of some of the Christmas rituals and decorations, as well as the pagan connections between the date suggested to be the day of Christ's birth.

Well, this post isn't about all of that.  Instead, I thought I'd clarify a few common misconceptions about the Christmas story as told in the Bible.

Before I get into that though, I want to make a few points about the Gospels themselves.

Each of the four Gospels are written from a different perspective with a specific audience in mind.  Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience, and presented Jesus as the messiah the Jews had been waiting for.  This is why Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, Jesus' adoptive father.  Joseph was a direct descendant of King David through Solomon's royal line, giving him legal claim to the throne of David (which, of course, during this period of time, the Romans had control of Palestine).  An adopted child had all the rights of a biological child, thus, Jesus had legal claim to the throne of David through Joseph.  So Matthew gives us the perspective of Jesus being King of the Jews.

Mark's Gospel may have been written to a Roman audience.  Mark portrays Jesus as a servant.

Luke, a gentile, wrote to a Greek audience, and more specifically, to someone named Theophilus (Luke 1:3).  Luke portrayed Jesus as a man, the perfect man.  Greeks were known as thinking men, so this was an appropriate perspective for a Greek audience.  Luke gives us the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus.  Mary was actually a descendant of King David too, although not through Solomon's royal line.  But as the biological mother of Jesus, this was an important genealogy from the perspective of Jesus being human.

The book of John, which was the last of the Gospels written, was probably written to a Christian audience in general.  John emphasized Jesus' divinity.

It's been suggested that the prophet Ezekiel saw a vision that predicted these four records of Jesus.  In chapter one of the book of Ezekiel, Ezekiel mentions seeing a vision of four living creatures.  Here is what he had to say about their faces:

Their faces looked like this: Each of the four had the face of a man, and on the right side each had the face of a lion, and on the left the face of an ox; each also had the face of an eagle.  -Ezekiel 1:10

These four living creatures are also mentioned in the book of Revelation.  The lion symbolizes Kingship.  The Ox (a.k.a. 'beast of burden') was used for pulling carts and ploughs, making it a symbol of servitude.  The face of a man symbolizes..well...a man, and the eagle symbolizes divinity.  In the book of Revelation, the four living creatures are named in the same order that the four Gospels were chosen for inclusion in the Bible.

Huh...I guess maybe the Council of Nicaea did pick the right books to include in the Bible.

Matthew and Luke are the only two Gospel writers that mention the birth of Jesus.  Neither of them said a whole lot about it though.  Neither of them give us a date of his birth, indicating they only thought it was significant that he was born, and not when he was born.  One of the reasons they probably chose to mention his birth was because of the perspective they were writing from.  Matthew needed to convince the Jews that Jesus was the messiah they were waiting for, and Luke wanted people to know that Jesus was a man in flesh and blood.

Luke tells us that an angel informed shepherds that were out with their flocks at night that the messiah had been born.  The shepherds then went to visit Him (Hmm...imagine that, an angel announcing the birth of the messiah to lowly shepherds.  Interesting that the angel didn't bother mentioning it to the 'authorities' and the big government.  I'm still wondering if it is just a coincidence that most alien sightings today are reported by country folk.  And come to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard someone report an alien saying, "Take me to your leader.").

So as for the date of Jesus' birth, it was probably in the spring time.  It wasn't winter, because the shepherds wouldn't have been out with their flocks at night during the winter.  It's possible that it was summertime or fall, but the springtime is probably more likely just because it seems more appropriate.  Spring was (and still is) considered to be a time of new birth, and at one point was considered to be the beginning of the new year (am I the only one that finds it odd we use a calendar that starts the new year in the dead of winter and begins new days in the middle of the night??).  So it seems fitting that the messiah would have been born during a time of new birth.  At this point, I don't see much need in changing the date it's celebrated though.  The Gospel writers didn't bother to include a date, so I guess December 25th is as good as any date.

In a lot of Nativity scenes, you'll see figures of Mary, Joseph, and the baby Jesus along with figures of animals and three wise men.  The problem is, the wise men didn't visit Jesus in a stable as a newborn.  Nor is there any indication there was only three wise men.  The wise men and the shepherds didn't arrive on the same night.  The wise men traveled from the East, and it may have been several days, weeks, or months after the birth when they visited.  By that time, Jesus and his parents were living in a house.  In fact, Matthew 2:10 even states the wise men visited Jesus in a house.  Matthew doesn't say anything about a stable.  We know that the wise men didn't arrive on the night of his birth, because Matthew 2:7 states that Herod asked the wise men when the star they had been following first appeared.  Matthew doesn't explicitly tell us what the wise men told him, but in Matthew 2:16, Herod decreed that all children two years old and younger were to be killed, and he based his decision on the timeframe the wise men had told him.  So going by that, the wise men may have arrived as late as two years after Jesus' birth (Although it probably wasn't quite that long, Herod probably just stated two years and younger in attempt to make sure all his bases were covered.).  It may also be important to note that Matthew says the wise men visited the "child," not the "baby."

The tale of the three wise men, known as Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, came several centuries later.  It crept into Christian tradition, and there's even a famous Christmas carol about them.  The Christmas carol further confuses the tale by describing them as being "three kings." But they were not kings.  I'm not aware of any translation of the Bible that describes them as "kings."

I'm not sure why people got the idea that there were only three wise men.  Maybe it's because only three gifts were mentioned.  But naming only three gifts doesn't indicate that only three people came and each gave an individual gift.  I could say that I received money, clothes, and gift cards at Christmas.  But I received those gifts from more than three people.  Additionally, I also received a combination of those gifts from some individuals!  So going by how many different gifts were named is not an indication of how many wise men there were.

More than likely, there were many wise men that came.  They might not have all been traveling together either.  If there were only a few of them, they might not have been granted an audience with King Herod.  The king probably had more to do than meet with a few eccentric astrologers from the East.  But if an entire entourage came, he might have to clear his schedule for that.  Also consider that if there had only been three of them, the king might not have been concerned with them coming into town looking for who they claimed was a newborn king.  Matthew also indicates that the people of Jerusalem were also disturbed by the arrival of the wise men; again, three visiting astrologers probably wouldn't have gotten the whole city into a frenzy.  I don't know how many there were, but I think there were probably more than three.

The story of the manger comes solely from Luke's record.  It's thought that Luke, who was not one of the Twelve, probably consulted the mother Mary as a source for his writings.  Some of the stories he writes about seem as though they may have been told from Mary's perspective, particularly the story of Jesus' birth and the events that led up to it (Luke begins his record by telling the story of the birth of John the Baptist first).  Luke actually skips over the part where Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt to escape King Herod's wrath.  Matthew included it in his record because the prophet Hosea said that God would call his son out of Egypt (Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:15).  Since Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, it was necessary to point out the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies.  Luke wasn't writing to a Jewish audience, so he didn't even bother to mention that part of the story.

Neither Matthew or Luke say a whole lot about the birth of Jesus.  They don't dwell on the topic.  Luke mentions an incident at the Temple when Jesus was twelve years old, but both records mainly focus on Jesus as an adult.

What's interesting to me is that some of the Christmas traditions have become so ingrained in the public consciousness, many people don't even notice that some of the traditions aren't a part of the Biblical record.  Even some people that have read the records all the way through don't seem to notice that the Bible never mentions wise men named Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar visiting Jesus on the night of his birth.

So yes, I suppose it is true that many of the common Christmas traditions are pagan in origin.  A lot of them seem to be adapted from Norse/Scandinavian traditions.  I can't say that I'm surprised though.  The Romans were known for adapting some of the customs of the people they conquered.  It's not mere coincidence that Roman and Greek pantheons were so similar.  The Romans had their own pantheon, but they also adapted aspects of the Greek pantheon into their own.  When Christianity came to Rome, the Romans adapted aspects of it too.  Over the years, Roman Catholics did as their pagan Roman ancestors did.  It took hundreds of years to convert the Scandinavians from their pagan beliefs to Catholic beliefs.  Various methods of forcing them to convert or demonizing their gods were tried.  But they also tried more subtle methods.  Sometimes the Catholics would also blend aspects of the Scandinavian traditions with Catholic beliefs, or in some cases, essentially just tell the Scandinavians the reign of their gods was a thing of the past.  In other words, the Catholics didn't always try to convince the Scandinavians their traditions weren't true, they just tried to convince them they were from an era of the past.  With that in mind, I'm not surprised that ancient Scandinavian traditions have continued into the present day.  Even those cold, snowy Scandinavian winters seem to be the traditional image of what the Christmas season is 'supposed' to look like.

Nevertheless, I love the Christmas season.  I love the cool air, the decorations, the music, and the joy.  So Merry Christmas!

The Messengers

A documentary I was watching last night about the history of angels got me thinking more about a concept I've written about before in my posts Angels, Demons, and Aliens and Those oh so standoffish aliens.  The concept suggests that aliens may be angels and/or demons, or vice versa.

The word "angel" is derived from the Latin word "angelos," which is derived from the Greek translation of the Hebrew word for "messenger."  The Bible doesn't really give a clear description of what angels look like.  Artistic depictions of angels with wings and halos didn't start appearing until around the 5th century AD.  It's pretty obvious that these depictions are just carried over from traditional depictions of pagan gods.  Numerous gods from the ancient Egyptian, Greek, and Roman pantheons were depicted with wings.  Cupid, Eros, and Hermes are probably the most recognizable (although Hermes' wings were on his sandals, not his back).  Interestingly, Hermes was the messenger of the Greek gods.

In the Bible, it seemed people weren't always aware they were in the presence of angels, such as in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19).  But oftentimes, people seemed to recognize the angels as angels.  The Bible never really describes in any great detail what the angels look like though.

I think this fits with the modern stories I've heard of angel encounters. In some stories, people don't even recognize the angel as an angel.  Typically, the angel just seems to come out of nowhere at just the right time to relay a special message or perform some good deed (read some angel stories here).  Othertimes, the angel's appearance may be more obvious, it may be glowing.  Or it may just give off a calming 'presence'.  So various modern stories of angels seem to fit with the ancient stories, sometimes they look like regular people, other times it's more obvious that they are angels.  It seems angels can choose how they want to appear to a person.

Looking to the skies for 'alien' life isn't something new at all.  People have been doing this all along.  The ancients thought of angels as messengers from heaven, and heaven is just another word for sky.  When people capitalize it as "Heaven," then it's considered to be the dwelling place of God.  But the word "heaven" is just a word for the sky and space.  So essentially, the ancients thought of angels as entities from space.

So is it really any different for us to look for aliens from space?  Is it just a case of semantics?

Maybe part of our problem in looking for life in outer space is we are too arrogant.  It seems that people are always looking for "life as we know it," meaning flesh and blood beings who breathe oxygen and drink water and like 70 degree (Fahrenheit) temperatures.  But who's to say that other life, including intelligent life, couldn't exist in environments totally different from what we are accustomed to?  With that in mind, how would an angel from 'heaven' be that much different than an 'alien' from space?  What qualifies as an 'angel' and what qualifies as an 'alien'?  Does it have something to do with how they look?  Or does it have something to do with how they behave?  Or does it have something to do with whether or not they travel on a spaceship?  Are the angels a type of 'alien'?  Or are what we think of as aliens something totally different?  And if angels and 'aliens' are both forms of intelligent life, then what exactly differentiates them each other?  And how many different types are there?

Typically, Greys, Nordics, and Reptilians are the three most common types of aliens some people claim to have seen.  I guess out of those three, the Nordics would be the type that look the most 'angelic'.  But are Nordics the same as angels?  Or would it be more accurate to ask are angels the same as Nordics?  If not, what makes them different?  Of course, it may also be necessary to ask whether 'Nordics' exist at all.

It seems that looking to the sky for 'aliens' may just be a 20th and 21st century interpretation of looking to the sky for angels.  The big question is are they really any different?  And how many different types are there?  And if aliens and angels are different, then what exactly is different about them?  Is it the appearance?  The mode of transportation?  Their behavour?  Their agenda?  Their purpose?

Perhaps sentient life is sentient life, regardless of what form it takes.

Tunnels to the Light

Michael Prescott has been writing about Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) on his blog lately, and I was particularly intrigued by his latest posting on the subject where he cites some cases from Kenneth Ring's book Lessons from the Light.

Here is one of the cases he cited:

Then there is the case of a nine-month-old baby boy who suffered a cardiac arrest during an emergency surgical procedure and was without a pulse for 40 minutes. Afterward he was in a coma for three months. Ring reports:

Two years later, when he was five, he was having lunch one day with his father and spontaneously brought up the time "when he had died."

As the mother observed before she related this event to us, neither parent had ever heard this story before. She went on to say, "He had never, ever, been told that he had died. He was never told the things that happened to him."

In any case, as the mother recalled a conversation, it went like this:

He sat down besides his dad, and he said, "Dad, do you know what?" And his dad said "What?" "You know I died." "Oh, you did?" And he said, "Yeah." His dad said, "Well, what happened?" And he said, "It was really, really dark, daddy, and then it was really, really bright. And I ran and ran, and it didn't hurt anymore." And his dad said, "Where were you running, Mark?" And he said, "Oh, Daddy, I was running up there [pointing upward].... And he said he didn't hurt anymore, and a man talked to him. And his dad said, "What kind of words did he say?" And Mark said, "He didn't talk like this [pointing to his mouth], he talked like this [pointing to his head]." Because he couldn't tell you with his little vocabulary that it was through the mind. And he said, "I didn't want to come back, Daddy, but I had to."

Here is another case he cites:

I was hovering over a stretcher in one of the emergency rooms at the hospital. I glanced down at the stretcher, knew the body wrapped in blankets was mine, and really didn't care. The room was much more interesting than my body. And what a neat perspective. I could see everything. And I do mean everything! I could see the top of the light on the ceiling, and the underside of the stretcher. I could see tiles on the ceiling and the tiles on the floor, simultaneously: three hundred degree spherical vision. And not just spherical. Detailed! I could see every single hair and the follicle out of which it grew on the head of the nurse standing beside the stretcher. At the time, I knew exactly how many hairs there were to look at. But I shifted focus. She was wearing glittery white nylons. Every single shimmer and sheen stood out in glowing detail, and once again, I knew exactly how many sparkles there were.

I recommend you go read the whole article.  If you've ever been interested in NDEs or paranormal phenomena in general, I think you'll probably like it.

Below are my comments about his posting.
--------------------------------------------------
One thing interesting to me about the case of the nine month old boy is that at nine months, he wouldn't know how to say much of anything. But during the NDE, he was apparently able to communicate and understand what was being said to him. Not only that, at five, he was apparently able to translate that understanding into words.

Another thing of interest to me are the NDErs who describe how vivid everything was during their experience. I think that is more evidence that the spirit self is our highest self. It seems our brain's interpretations of what we see and hear around us is restricted to the limitations of our eyes and ears. Our spirit self probably soaks up all the vivid information we see and hear, but humanity doesn't seem to know - or has forgotten - how to access all of this detailed information. During an NDE though, it seems that spirits no longer confined to the limitations of body are able to fully experience a larger spectrum of reality. I don't know if I would go so far as to say that we are spirits 'trapped' in human bodies; I think it may be that experiencing life in a human body is an intended part of development, or we may have just forgotten how to access the full spectrum our spirit self is able to observe.

I sometimes wonder if the bio-magnetic energy fields around us are either our spirit selves, or an effect given off by our spirit selves. I also wonder if the 'electrical' currents flowing through our brains are not the result of 'brain activity' itself, but the result of our brain being operated by those 'electrical' currents. In other words, perhaps the brain is like a set of buttons, and the 'electrical' currents are like a set of fingers. If so, then it makes sense that the physical body would cease to operate once the 'fingers' move away from the 'buttons'.

Those oh so standoffish aliens

There are many among humanity who wonder if there is sentient life in the universe besides us.  Today, there are those that are convinced that aliens are visiting us.  There are others who are skeptical.  Many people are open to the possibility, but are not convinced.  There's probably some people that never even give it any thought.

One of the biggest question's people ask in regards to the subject is why the aliens don't make their presence known?  Of course, there are some people that claim the aliens have made their presence known...some claim to have communicated with them, others claim to have been abducted by them.  But why don't the aliens just make some grand appearance and announce their arrival to everyone?

Well many people have made various suggestions over the years as to why the aliens are seemingly so shy.  These are some of the ideas people have come up with over the years (along with some of my own thoughts).

(Note: Whenever I used the word "government," I'm not necessarily referring to any particular government.)

• The government knows about the aliens, but are afraid to release the information to the public out of fear that the public won't handle the information well.  Essentially, our rulers just don't think were ready to know about the existence of aliens yet.  

To a certain point, I like this suggestion....but ultimately, I think this suggestion gives people the wrong impression.  I don't think the government is concerned about us so much as they are concerned about themselves.  I'll go into more detail about what I mean by that in the last suggestion I list.

• Earth is just an interstellar rest stop or tourist destination.

This suggestion just reeks of 50s and 60s B movie sci-fi.  The idea that aliens are just zipping around space going about their daily grind is probably just us projecting our way of life on them.

• The aliens are just here to observe our behavior.  

Some people think the aliens just found us and merely want to observe our behavior and development.  The aliens purposely don't interfere because they want to see how we do it on our own.  This may be a plausible suggestion.  A variant of this suggestion says that the aliens didn't just find us, but we are actually their science project.  They created our civilization and want to watch how we develop.  Another variant says they are breeding us to be their slaves.  I think these latter two suggestions also sound like something from B movie sci-fi.

• The aliens don't make their presence known because they simply aren't there. 

Well bah humbug to you too.

• The aliens we see today are the same as the angels and demons of the past.

I like this idea.  In the past, angels, demons, and 'gods' rarely made a public appearance, and they usually only appeared to or communicated with certain people.  How convenient that the aliens of today only appear to or communicate with certain people too?

One thing I don't like about this idea is I think it gives some people the wrong impression.  Some people interpret this as ancient people 'mistaking' aliens for angels, demons, or 'gods'.  Well I don't necessarily think this was a 'mistake'.  If we are to assume for a moment that the aliens of today are the same as the angels and demons of yesterday, then I think it is more or less an issue of semantics.  If they are the same, then these beings are what they are regardless of what you call them.  I can call this bottle of Dr. Pepper I'm drinking a soda, a pop, or a soft drink, but regardless of what I call it, it still is what it is - a consumable beverage.

As for why the 'aliens' don't reveal themselves to everyone, I guess you can just insert your own beliefs about the angels, demons, and 'gods' of the past.  Whatever you think their reasons were for only revealing themselves to select individuals in the past would presumably be the same reasons they only reveal themselves to select individuals now.

And although I like this idea and think it's plausible, I'm not 100% convinced that it's a correct assumption.  It's also possible that it's only partially right...which would be to say that some 'aliens' are angels and demons, but not all of them.

• The aliens look like us and live among us.  

The aliens either look like us, or are at least able to disguise themselves into looking like us.  I suppose it's possible.  Maybe they just want to help us without us knowing it?

• The aliens have an agreement with the government that states they (the aliens) have to keep their presence a secret from the public.

Actually I thought this one up myself, but I'm not necessarily claiming to be the first person that ever thought of this.  Basically the gist of this idea is similar to the first one I listed, but the reason the government wants to keep the presence of the aliens a secret is because they are somehow benefiting from keeping the knowledge of the aliens a secret.  The benefit would most likely be a military advantage or something like that.  By keeping the alien presence a secret, the government doesn't have to share the knowledge they have gained from the aliens.  And as they say...'knowledge is power'.  As for how they convinced the aliens not to show anyone else their knowledge, I don't know.  Maybe they're just good negotiators.

• The aliens are totally peaceful and choose to avoid the potential conflict caused by them making their presence known publicly.

This one is similar to the first suggestion I mentioned.  But the difference is the reason for disclosure is not because the government thinks we aren't prepared to accept the reality of visiting aliens, but because the government just doesn't want us to know they exist.  In other words, the government is not concerned that knowledge of extraterrestrials will damage our psyches and confuse our view of reality, but concerned that it would shift the balance of power away from them (the government).  Simply put, public knowledge of extraterrestrials would be a threat to ruling elite's power.

Think about it...if everyone knew extraterrestrials existed, we'd be wanting to ask them a lot of questions.  Think of all the questions you'd want to ask them?  Essentially, power would begin to shift to the aliens.  The ruling elite don't want this.

This isn't about politics.  This is not about Democrat or Republican.  It's not even about liberal or conservative.  It's about elitism.  Elitists can be found in all areas of the political spectrum, whether it be the extreme left, the middle of the road, or the extreme right.  Elitism is basically a mixture of snobbery, pompousness, racism, and a 'survival of the fittest' attitude.  Most of history's prominent rulers could be considered elitists, and the same is true today.  Elitist rulers don't want anyone threatening their authority.  I think the best example to use is communism.  Communist countries take an official stance of atheism, and communist leaders love this because their authority isn't questioned by religious authorities or what a holy book says.  They don't want the people they rule to believe in a higher authority.  As such...they don't want the people they rule to believe in aliens either.  The presumably more advanced aliens would be a threat to the leader's authority.  People would no longer be interested in what their leader had to say, they'd be more interested in what the aliens have to say.  I mean come on, can you imagine Stalin or Mao just stepping aside and saying, "Yessir Mr. Alien, please give us your knowledge and tell us how we need to do things."  I think Stalin and Mao were perfectly content being in charge and telling everyone else how to live their lives.

To further clarify though,  were not just talking about elected government officials or dictators.  The world's ruling elite consist of much more than just elected officials.  Global politics are also influenced by international bankers, wealthy industrialists, and moguls of various sorts.

So what were talking about here would be a paradigm shift.  A paradigm shift that the ruling elite would not want.  The ruling elite are perfectly content with being wealthy and powerful.  They are perfectly content with having servants to do the things they don't want to do, while they do the things they want to do, whether it be deciding where to buy another mansion, or flying somewhere in their personal jet.  They fear the message the aliens may bring would be a threat to their wealth and power.

So with all this in mind...it may be that the aliens are aware that the ruling elite would attack if they attempted to relay whatever their message is.  The media would justify the attacks by portraying the aliens as invaders.  They aliens may very well be capable of retaliating, but it may be their choice not too.  Just because you have the power to retaliate doesn't mean you should.  If the aliens are peaceful by nature, it may be their desire to just avoid conflict altogether.

Now of course, it's not quite as simple as just blaming elitists that don't want their power threatened.  This is where it gets similar to the first suggestion I mentioned.  Inevitably, there would be much confusion on what the true nature of the aliens are.  Some people would go along with what the media and their leaders - whether religious or political - tell them.  If the leaders and the media tell them that the aliens are bad, they'll assume they're bad.  But others would want to listen to what the aliens have to say.  So the stability of the world would be threatened regardless.  The main difference between this suggestion and the first one though is the resulting conflict would begin because the ruling elite felt their power would be threatened and chose to instigate a conflict to maintain that power.  The ruling elite are not concerned about us, they are concerned about themselves.

I don't claim to know the answer to the question of why the aliens seem to be so shy, but it could very well be one of these scenarios.  It may be a combination of more than one of these scenarios.  It may even be something we haven't thought of yet.  Perhaps one day we will know.

The son of the morning

The post I made yesterday got me thinking about something that I think most people probably don't realize. Something that even most professing Christians don't realize.

What is it?

Lucifer can be seen. As in visibly, with your eyes...and without drugs. You just have to check the sky early in the morning before the sun rises, or right after the sun sets in the evening. 'Lucifer' is what is known in the Bible (Isaiah 14) as the 'morning star' that has fallen from heaven. We know the morning star (which is the same as the evening star) today as the planet Venus.

Venus is the brightest 'star' in the sky. The term 'Lucifer' loosely translates as 'lightbearer', or 'shining one'. In context, the passage in Isaiah 14 is referring to the King of Babylon, but the description is nonetheless an allegory for an actual supernatural (and perhaps astrological) event.

Throughout the rest of the Bible, the morning star is a reference to Jesus. In Isaiah, the reference to 'Lucifer' falling from heaven can thus be interpreted (at least) two ways:

• The devil, who masquerades an as angel of the light (2 Corinthians 11), falling from heaven.
• Jesus, who was from heaven but came down to Earth, where he was eventually executed. Jesus resurrected though. Venus may 'die' every morning after sunrise, but it 'resurrects' again in the evening.

I prefer the first explanation. The second explanation could still make sense though, if for no other reason than the fact that references to Jesus being the morning star come later in the Bible.

Sometimes I wonder if the devil originally came from Venus long ago. It's not a 'belief' I have per se, but it is something I wonder about in light of the description from Isaiah 14.

The Hidden Folk

It may come as a surprise to some, but there are still a lot of people in the world today that believe in elves, fairies, gnomes, trolls, and the like. And it's not just people in poor parts of Eastern Europe or third world countries either. A significant portion of the population of Iceland still believes in the "hidden folk", also known as the "little people".

I remember seeing a documentary some years ago about Leprechauns in Ireland. Although most people in Ireland no longer believe in Leprechauns, there are still some that do. And, according to that documentary, there were farmers who claimed not to believe in them, yet, they still wouldn't farm areas of land traditionally thought to be Leprechaun territory. And while the vast majority of the population of the Western world no longer believes in the little people, there are still some that do here and there.

So why would someone still believe in elves and fairies? Some people claim to have seen or heard them. Others may just believe because they are surrounded by people that believe (like in Iceland, where it is still popular to believe in them). But considering there are a lot of people that have seen them, what are we to make of that? Are we to assume they are all making it up? Or are we to assume they are all just drunk or on drugs? Or maybe they are misidentifying something? Or maybe a combination of the three? Or what if they really are seeing something? If they are seeing something, then what are they seeing? And why are they apparently so hard to find?

Well unlike bigfoot, the little people are, well…little, so I guess that would make it easier for them to hide if necessary. But, it may be more complex than that. The little people are what some people refer to as "elementals." Basically, elementals are spirits of the elements – earth, fire, wind, and water (just add heart and you'll have Captain Planet!). In other words, they are some type of spirit beings. Perhaps that's why they are so hard to find?

Or are they hard to find? Here is a video clip of what some have alleged is a type of gnome:

The video is probably faked, but I didn't find a good debunking of it. Snopes lists it has being false, yet I thought they had a rather poor debunking of it. Basically their evidence consisted of it can't be real because gnomes are fictional creatures, and because The Sun isn't a credible newspaper and even compared it to the Weekly World News, which is a poor comparison I think. The Sun shouldn't be confused with the American tabloid know as the Sun. The Sun has been known to report some other wild things in the past, but I wouldn't necessarily compare it to the Weekly World News; the tabloid that intentionally comes up with wild stories that are obviously meant to be sensational (such as batboy). Snopes also accused the video of being a "classic hoax video" (I'm not sure what they are considering to be classic hoax videos though) because it was short and sensational. Short and sensational it may be, but it was taken with a cell phone camcorder, and many cell phone camcorders typically can't take very long videos. Anyways….the point is it may very well be fake, but Snopes had a poor debunking of it.

So what about all the ancient cultures that believed in the existence of little people? Many ancient cultures throughout the world have some sort of tradition about little people. And not all of these cultures were connected with each other either. If they don't exist, why were there so many ancient cultures from around the world that believed in them? Did they all make up the same beliefs independently? And what exactly is the "proof" that they don't exist? Is merely stating that they don't exist because they can't be found proof of their nonexistence? Do they not exist because they haven't been found and documented by a "credible scientific authority?"

Don't misunderstand the point I want to make in this post. I'm not saying I believe in elves and fairies. I'm not necessarily trying to prove they exist. The point I want to make here is that there are still many people that do believe in them, and it's not necessarily impossible that elves and fairies could exist. Most people believe in something paranormal or supernatural, whether it be, ghosts, angels, demons, aliens, bigfoot, psychic phenomena, or any combination of those plus more. If you believe in spirits, then it's not necessarily an absurd belief that the "hidden folk" people claim to see are some sort of spirit beings. Bear in mind also that these "hidden folk" are allegedly forest spirits that avoid human contact, so unless you spend a lot of time in forests, it's unlikely you'd ever have the chance to see one anyways. So while I don't know for a fact that they do exist, I also don't know for a fact that they don't exist.

Many people may laugh at the idea of believing in elves and fairies, but bear in mind that regardless of what your beliefs are, there are other people laughing at some of the things you believe.

_________________________

-If you want to learn more about the modern belief in elves and fairies, here is a short video clip of a documentary about the belief in elves in Iceland (embedding was disabled).

-Here is an episode of Destination Truth where they go to Iceland to search for elves.

(The first part of the episode is about a Japanese lake monster, the second part is about elves.)

Angels, Demons, and Aliens

As I pointed out in my earlier blog posting "Reality that you can't see", how we view the reality around us is really a manifestation of our mind's interpretation of it. With that thought in mind, I would like to expand it a little further and apply it to the UFO phenomenon. Others before me have stated that the modern UFO phenomenon is really nothing new, but merely a different manifestation of what ancient people saw and perceived as gods, angels, or demons. I think they may be on to something. For instance, 2 Kings 2:11, Elisha saw Elijah taken away into heaven by a whirlwind after the appearance of a chariot of fire and horses. Some would say the story is a hallucination or a fabrication, others would say a chariot of fire and horses literally flew by, and some others would say it was a UFO that would look familiar to us, but Elisha only knew how to describe it in terms he was familiar with.

Well perhaps Elisha really did see a chariot of fire and horses, although what we would have seen if we viewed the same event may have been different. So in other words, if we could time travel back to that event and watch it along side of Elisha, he may have seen a chariot of fire and horses taking away Elijah in a whirlwind, but we may have seen a flying saucer beaming him up. We have seen images of flying saucers and other spaceships flying to far away places in space on television and in movies for decades now. Elisha had never seen such things. So his mind interpreted the phenomenon in a manner familiar to him. Chariots and horses would have been what was familiar to him, and the fact that they were flaming denoted that there was something special about this chariot and these horses (the fact that they were flying). In our case, we see something metallic that appears to be mechanical and/or electronic based. Typically UFOs we see look saucer shaped, triangle shaped, cigar shaped, or bell shaped (a.k.a. acorn shaped). Perhaps how we see these objects is partially reflective of what we are conditioned to think they look like, and partially reflective of us recognizing it is something 'special' and foreign to us (which is why we don't see it as just a plane or helicopter). Perhaps if Elisha saw them, he would still see a flaming chariot being pulled by flaming horses. And it's not necessarily that there is a right or wrong way of seeing it. What's important is that it is seen and manifests itself in the minds of those who see it in a way that is understandable to them. In other words, what Elisha saw and what we may see manifests as something somewhat familiar, yet as something special and foreign to us at the same time. And it's not necessarily that the angels/aliens/demons are disguising themselves (though that isn't to say that they can't), but how we see them depends on who we are.

I think this phenomenon may be further evidenced by how people see ghosts. Some people ask the question of how a ghost could have clothes on (the clothes were never alive, thus they can't be 'dead' either). Well, when people see a ghost, it's not that the ghost isn't there, they just aren't seeing it in its true form. Their mind interprets the existence of the ghost in a way familiar to them. Typically, most people only know what a person looks like with their clothes on, so the mind interprets the existence of a ghost as a person with clothes on. I think the same can be said for angels, demons, and maybe aliens. Some people have seen angels in the traditional artistic form of a person with wings and a halo, others have seen them as glowing figures, sometimes with golden hair or apparel, and others have seen them as ordinary looking people that perform some good deed then suddenly disappear. I think in the case of angels, how people see them may be based partially on what a person thinks an angel should look like, and partially on how the angel projects itself. In other words, in some cases an angel may want a person to see it as a spiritual being, in other cases it may just want to help someone out without alarming them or bringing unnecessary attention to itself (such as when they appear as an ordinary person). The same could be said for demons too. Demons have been portrayed and seen as all different types of nasty and grotesque creatures. In some cases though, they may be be seen or portrayed as beautiful and seductive creatures (we also know that demons sometimes disguise themselves as angels of the light). Aliens are typically seen as reptilians, Nordics, or grays (it's been said there are two types of grays, those commonly portrayed with large almond shaped black eyes, and another kind with more human like eyes and features, though still gray and hairless). Perhaps these aliens we see are some type of manifestation of angels and/or demons.

So to conclude, although it is possible for angels and demons to project a certain image of themselves to us, how we actually see them is largely a manifestation of how our mind interprets them. We should also be careful not to confuse a spiritual vision with an actual event. For instance, in the book of Ezekiel, Ezekiel sees a vision of God and a wheel within a wheel. Some have interpreted this to be some type of UFO, but in reality, I think this was a spiritual vision portrayed to Ezekiel specifically. So even if you or I or anyone else had been sitting next to him when he saw it, we probably would not have seen anything. While on the other hand, if we had been with Elisha when he saw Elijah taken away into heaven, we would have probably seen something; whether or not or it would have been a chariot of fire or a flying saucer I don't know for sure. The difference is one is a vision, the other is an actual event that is occurring. While people of today and people of the past may view certain similar events differently, it doesn't necessarily mean that the events themselves are different. We should also be careful not to be pretentious and assume that we are seeing it the "right" way. What's important is not necessarily how it was seen, but that it was seen.

Fire, Brimstone, and Bombs Oh My!

Last night I was watching a documentary on the National Geographic channel that was trying to figure out what caused green glass to form way out in the Sahara in Egypt. The scientists knew that intense heat causes sand to fuse into glass, but they weren't sure what could have caused so much heat on such a massive scale in ancient Egypt. They compared it to the mysterious Tunguska event of 1908, where 80 million trees were knocked over in an area covering about 830 square miles by some sort of shockwave. It's unknown what caused the shockwave, but a couple of the most popular theories are an asteroid exploding about 3-5 miles above the surface, or a small comet vaporizing in the atmosphere. Other theories include anti-matter reaction of some sort, a UFO crash, or an experiment gone wrong (or right?). Another interesting thing about the Tunguska event is that glowing skies were observed throughout Europe for several nights after the event. The explosion is estimated to have been 1000 times stronger the atom bomb that exploded at Hiroshima. Whatever it was...it was powerful.

But anyways, back to the green glass in Egypt. The scientists interviewed in the documentary seemed to have been fans of the exploding asteroid over Tunguska theory and attributed the green glass in the Sahara to an exploding asteroid too. There is no crater at either location, so if it was an asteroid, it had to have exploded in the air. Although the asteroid theory seems to be a plausible answer, I don't feel it answers all the questions. For one, I would think even if it exploded in the air, there would be some traces of it remaining to be found somewhere. And what caused it to explode? Typically asteroids just burn up in the atmosphere....so what kind of composition would an asteroid have to have to actually explode on a scale much greater than the atom bomb at Hiroshima?

The green glass is what I really found to be interesting though. Finding ancient green glass (the research into the source of the glass was inspired by green glass found in a piece of jewelry from King Tut's tomb) in Egypt reminded me of another place where green glass was found...except it wasn't formed in ancient times. It was created in New Mexico in 1945. It was created by the test of the first atomic bomb. The heat emitted from it was so intense, it fused the sand together into green glass. The glass covered an area around 600 yards wide. Interestingly though, the Egyptian glass covers an area thousands of times larger. All of this reminded me of an excerpt from a poem I had heard before:

"...a single projectile
Charged with all the power of the Universe.
An incandescent column of smoke and flame
As bright as the thousand suns
Rose in all its splendour...
a perpendicular explosion
with its billowing smoke clouds...
...the cloud of smoke
rising after its first explosion
formed into expanding round circles
like the opening of giant parasols...

..it was an unknown weapon,
An iron thunderbolt,
A gigantic messenger of death,
Which reduced to ashes
The entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas.
...The corpses were so burned
As to be unrecognisable.
The hair and nails fell out;
Pottery broke without apparent cause,
And the birds turned white.

After a few hours
All foodstuffs were infected...
...to escape from this fire
The soldiers threw themselves in streams
To wash themselves and their equipment."

Although that sounds like a description of a nuclear explosion, its actually supposed to be a description of an event that occurred during an Indian war variously dated to have occurred from around 2800 years ago to around 8000 years ago, depending on who you ask. Those verses are said to come from the Hindu epic the Mahabharata (I've never actually read the Mahabharata myself though), which is one of the longest epics ever written...much longer than some of the more famous epics like the Illiad and the Odyssey. But, J. Robert Oppenheimer, one of the lead scientists on the Manhattan Project (that built the first atomic bomb), must have read it or at least read part of it, because he quoted it once when describing how he felt after the first atomic bomb was tested. He said:

"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

When the ancient towns of Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa in India were excavated, they were found to have come to a sudden and abrupt end. Many of the skeletons found there were said to be holding hands and unburied, indicating the demise of the towns and their people seemingly came instantly...possibly by some type of blast. I've often heard that the skeletons found in these locations were radioactive, by I haven't been able to find what I would consider to be a good source to corroborate those claims. If you do a google search for the topic, most the sources for radioactive skeletons that come up are websites claiming alien involvement or advanced people from Atlantis or something like that....so you have to wonder if those claims aren't just the claims of somebody's overactive imagination that have gotten repeated over and over. While I think Atlantis probably did exist, I don't think its people were dropping nukes in India. But Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa aren't the only places in India that supposedly had some sort of radioactive blast. I remembered an article I had saved years ago that had originally been printed in the World Island Review in 1992. The article described construction being halted on a housing development in an area that supposedly still had high levels of radiation. The validity of the article may be questionable, but I figured I would mention it anyways.

But Hindu epics and claims of radioactive skeletons aren't the only evidence of powerful explosions in the ancient past. In the book of Genesis in the Bible, we have the tale of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God destroyed these cities by raining fire and brimstone down on them. It's uncertain where the exact location of Sodom and Gomorrah was - they would have been in ruins already when Genesis was written - but the most likely locations are the ruins of what is now known as Bab Edh-Drah and Numeira. They were "cities of the plain" and seem to match the description we have of Sodom and Gomorrah...all the way down to their demise. The two ruined cities seemed to have met their fate at the same time. They had collapsed walls, walls tilted at 50 degree angles, debris, and skeletons that weren't buried. So whatever the fate of the two cities was, it seemed to have come instantly. Typically, the sudden destruction of a city can be attributed to an earthquake or volcanic eruption, but this doesn't appear to be the case with these cities. For one, there is no volcano in the area, so it certainly wasn't a volcanic eruption. The possibility of an earthquake can't necessarily be ruled out entirely, but the evidence doesn't necessarily indicate an earthquake either. There is evidence of incineration though. So the evidence seems to suggest that the cities may very well have had fire and brimstone rained down on them. It should also be pointed out that it is a very salty area...and in the Genesis story, Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt during the destruction of the cities.

While I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of aliens being involved in ancient warfare that may have included massive explosions, I doubt that that is the case. I doubt the theory that it was Atlanteans even more. But what can't be denied is that heat intense enough to fuse sand into glass has occurred in the ancient past. We also know that a shockwave that leveled trees over an 830 mile radius occurred many years before an atomic bomb was ever built. And ancient texts have described events that sound like explosions from high in the air. So while man made nuclear bombs may not have come on the scene until the mid twentieth century...its apparent that some type of massive explosions had already happened long before the modern man made ones occurred..