Hey all!

I'm new to this forum....looking forward to having some great discussions with you all and getting to know your ideas about what's going on here in these crazy times!

First of all, I'm a Raelian. Has anyone heard of Rael before? (Info attached below)

-Josh

I'm a member of the Raelian Movement and the founder of the movement, a man named Rael, was contacted by an extra-terrestrial named Yahweh on 13th December 1973. During this encounter he was dictated a series of messages, which he wrote down and later published in the form of 3 books.

In summary, these messages explain that scientists from another planet originally created all life on Earth using DNA. These human beings were known in the Hebrew Bible as ELOHIM, but were mistaken for gods by our ancestors. The word ELOHIM does not mean “God”, but is a plural word meaning, “those who came from the sky”. It is to these people that Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Krishna, Joseph Smith and many many other prophets referred to.

Now that humanity has the scientific knowledge to understand this, the Elohim have asked for these important messages to be communicated to the world, and for an embassy to be built, so they can return to Earth as predicted by all the major religions.

For more info go to www.rael.org where you can get a free download of “Intelligent Design – Message from the Designers”.

I know him quite well. The only reason his church is a success is because of the orgies. He refuses to discuss the ETs part of his religion publicly (and even privately from the insiders reports I've heard) since a very long time. it's understandable as that part of his religion really didn't grown up well since the 70's.


The church lost a lot of credibility with the clone fiasco. For those who don't know, Raël and a women of his church claimed to have cloned humans some years ago but never provided proof or ever said anything about the faith of the clones.


I admire him though. He managed to get a lot of wives and supporters.

I think most people on this board have heard of him. I personally wouldn't even think of joining simply because it goes against my grain to "follow" anyone. But hey - whatever floats your boat (or in this case, gets your rocks off)

BTW, I actually met him once in downtown Quebec City around fifteen years ago before he became known. He was playing the pan flute and trying to get his movement started. Seemed pretty proficient at it too.

You are promoting a form of hucksterim. Claude Maurice Marcel Vorilhon, huckster. His name is not RAEL, those are initials for Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory. The following quote should raise enough flags to make the United Nations jealous. "... was contacted by an extra-terrestrial named Yahweh ..." - yeah, right!

Even worse: "He claims that certain mysteries were explained to him based on new interpretations of sacred texts such as the Bible.[28] He made the claim that on October 7, 1975 he was contacted by an Elohim who took him to another planet where he met Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad and received teachings passed on in his second book Les extra-terrestres m'ont emmené sur leur planète ("Extraterrestrials Took Me To Their Planet"). In this book, Vorhilhon describes harmonious and peaceable beings who were free of money, sickness, and war.[29]" - Wikipedia

SkepticalEd, you can tear down anyone you want, but for the love of all things holy...please do not quote anything from Wikipedia.

Why not? It depends on the information and in this case the same can be found in any source. Just go to google and type RAEL. I was aware of Claude from the get-go and nothing's changed, nothing's different, he's a flim-flam person. Anyone with similar claims is to be avoided. That is avoided by the educated.

Didnt Rael claim that he cloned a human a few years ago?

Hello, Josh! Welcome to the forum!

I have heard of RAEL and the Raelians, but it's a general knowledge, populare culture sort of thing. I'm much more interested in hearing what you have to say about it (websites are interesting, but you just don't get the personal touch from them.) Would you share some of your personal experiences? What is it that attracted you to Raelianism? Is your family involved also? What would you say are the core beliefs that have given you insight into yourself through Raelianism?

Any information to satisfy my curiousity!


Thanks,

OS

No matter what you look up on Wikipedia, it is more accurate than anything Raelism can offer.

Gosh, I really wish all the Wiki bashers would get together and offer a better free resource Don't bash the problem - fix it.

Claude Whorhillion 'ey. Sexual sicko extrodinaire. South Korea still banning him? Even his home country classifies him as cult - not religion.

Although, I wouldn't mind attending a love hug festivel I can see why one would convert. If the religion falls over, they have Rael's Girls and the Order of Angels. Maybe they could start a magazine. Beats the heck out of that farce that Scientology is I suppose. Nobody killed yet like poor Lisa McPherson. No topless G String honeys wandering Scientolotgy churches either, unless maybe if you are Tom Cruise.

I actually read intelligent design, the ideals are anything but intelligent. The economics alone are destructive and ridiculous. Certainly written for the layman by the layman.
Sad they were not intelligent enough to come up with their own story, plagerising the Bible sucks man, we already have enough versions of it to fight over. We don't need another religion. Heck, they even stole the swastika for their logo, not very imaginative this lot.

There have been threads before about this subject and i think you'll find most people do not buy into it.....But welcome and enjoy the site...

If it came down to a choice between Wikipedia, and, say channelling ET's, for reliable sources of information, i think I know which one I'd choose.

*high five*

Quoting from Wikipedia is like buying a wedding ring from Walmart.



There is no fixing it. The best research and fact gathering can only come from gathering facts and evidence from a wide variety of independently derived sources. The moment one tries to pass off one source's information as "true", it opens the door to partisanship and bias.

I've read a little bout em. Any Sect/Religion/Cult <-- (take ya pick) that messes with the human genome, practices and or endorses human cloning, I would be seriously questioning imo...

What, then, about those who just give a link to some video on Youtube as evidence for whatever wild claims they make? Would you offer the same criticisms? And is Wikipedia the only source that offers any views of the Raelian movement that its supporters might disagree with? Then, you might have grounds to argue about bias.

If you think that Wikipedia offers the only source online for views for or against Vorhillon, you're in sad shape. And as a matter of fact, aside for international press conferences or news coverage that can be verified as to whether or not they actually took place, I DO place a skeptic's eye on all video evidence of events - especially since I work with Photoshop and video editing software every day. Putting up YouTube videos as evidence is just as ridiculous as using any other free vid hosting service. Having said that, I have to be fair and state that when initially trying to find out more about any given topic I'm unfamiliar with, Wiki is usually the first thing I look up. But if I want in-depth knowledge, I stay away from it like the plague.

Case in point, the world wide UFO web. 'Hundreds' of websites, blogs and spaces essentially presenting the same information from a few sources (most just cut and paste), and suddenly we have 'irrefutable' evidence. Just because the mob has spoken.
In the case of the Raelians we have many seperate sites that range from critical to simply presenting information on the group. At least with the wikipedia articles, the writers have made an effort to stick to the neutral point of view policy.

If that were true, Wiki messages concerning the removal of said source information (or ones saying that the information may be speculation based rather than gathered through scientific or other reliable methods) would not be so present on so many topics.

Here is the standard Wiki message for topics that might not meet their standards:



Keyword here is "help". if Wikipedia was a reliable and fact driven source for information, THEY WOULD NOT BE ASKING FOR YOUR HELP!

Do not quote Wikipedia. It cheapens you. It shows you as being lazy. Use it to inform yourself on stuff you know nothing about, then refine your search by actually digging about everywhere else. Relying on Wiki for in-depth knowledge is like relying upon CNN for news.

And yet its become acceptence to reference for university study... If it's that 'lazy', why don't I just get given my degree when the cheque clears? Why isn't every assignment that submitted with wikipedia references automatically failed?
At least wiki has 'standards' guidlines. Unlike those UFO sites I mentioned earlier (most of whom think that, by virtue of an author being UFO believer and published, there is no need to dig a little deeper or find opposing POV to compare to).

To me, Wiki is a good starting point in the same way as a critical reading review is on an article or a book. It gives a brief outline and shows a few references that can be followed onto other more in-depth information. Which is the problem for any situation where the knowledge falls into the realm of 'members only'.

Of course the Raelian movement is going to be based on speculation. Just like scientology, or any other belief system, the only way to actually get an informed veiw is to convert and be an actual believer, then compare that which you now 'know' to what others think.
Though, you now have the problem of totally different worldview to overcome.

isn't that what I said? I'm fully aware that many people have lots and lots to say about Mr. Vorhillon and his incredible adventures, so, what i was saying was, why complain that Wikipedia is biased? if it was the only source that said something unfavourable about it, then you might have grounds to complain about bias.

I'd be absolutely fascinated if you, or anyone else, could come up with some source that could not be accused of bias when talking about the incredible Mr Vorhillon and his spiders from Mars, or any other such character.

I don't think Rael is real.
gettit? I said I don't think Rael is....

oh forget it..

I have to agree that Walmart isn't Tiffany's. However, if one is young and on a limited budget there's nothing wrong with what they offer see link. I feel quite the same way about Wiki, good for very general information. The fact that everyone sort of 'polices' Wiki isn't a bad thing IMO. Wiki is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

Now, as for the Raelians; faith based beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

As for the human cloning, I've yet to see any evidence that this indeed took place.

Wiki is a great jumping off point, because a lot of the quotes you find on there can be sourced to other places on the internet that are specific to that topic.

Anyway, I don't know much about Raelian(ism?) but to me it sounds like just another faith based system where the followers are expected to just believe the words of one human being, without evidence of any kind. I can't do it, whether it's Jesus Christ or Claude or the Heaven's Gate guy.

I need something more than the ramblings of a man with a questionable mental stability.

That's just dumb. Wiki is a user driven application. Many many users will edit and refine the same piece. I've added pages about incredibly obscure music only to find that a week later its been refined and corrected. So more popular topics are going to be very very refined and edited and thanks to the wiki mods, they are free from vandalism, ambiguity or bias. Each entry has be properly referenced as well, something people on this forum know nothing about.

So on the whole I will take wiki over any other internet resource. It beggers belief that people are sitting there trying to convince others of the authenticity of Raelian writings on the web and then saying that wiki, which is used in the american law courts, is unreliable.

Perspective people, please.

The latest @Iraq War [trademark and version pending] got started based off in part from a University student's paper on whether or not Saddam had WOMD, so I guess some top officials agree with you. I'm sure he got his information off of Wiki.

Use it as a starting point to get to the good stuff from its references, but don't quote directly from it.

And kids who don't have money and want a wedding ring should do the sensible thing and elope to Vegas so they can get married by Elvis for fifty bucks. That's both crazy and romantic. Why enrich a corporation that encourages team chanting in the mornings for its employees and engulfs private businesses?



See above.

No, the war on Iraq wasn't started by a university paper and "I'm sure he got his information off of Wiki. " is not good enough to convince me that is shouldn't be used as a direct reference.

Thank you Emma. I really didn't know what to say about the idea that the Iraq War is Wikis fault...

Tip: Wiki also can't coach others on spelling and grammar.

Also, in case some have it stuck in their heads that the Iraq war is an American venture, I was referring to the fact that Blair had presented a compiled dossier of evidence for Saddam's possession of WOMD that was, in fact, based off in part from a university student's paper. I will provide non Wiki based references later. Right now there is a snowstorm here and I need to do some shoveling.

What does that mean?

Is it supposed to?

Oh, was that supposed to be a crack?

I first came across raelians when i was doing an image search for magen davids and svastikas. I then had a looka on wiki to learn a bit more about them. wiki is perfectly fine if you know absolutely nothing about a subject and you want to get a start on it.
I'm still very much in favour of good old fashioned books for anything further. I have a naive belief that it takes considerably more resources and or credibility to publish a book than it does to publish something on the world hive brain:-)

Very well said.

Uh huh. And what exactly was it in these books that you couldn't find on wiki?

Feel free to read the second paragraph of my post Emma:-P

I did. What did you find in those books that you can't find on wiki?

Integrity and a filtered and paid and accountable team coordinated information dissemination process, for starters.

So books written by Von Daniken, Vorilhon, Drosnin and Sitchin automatically have more objective accuracy than wiki simply because they went through a publishing process???

Anyone else spot the problem here?

I'm unsure why you have taken a dislike to the fact that i prefer books over internet published information. I don't remember typing anything detrimental about your beloved wiki in any of my posts or anything effectively saying that i could not find information on wiki that i could find in books(i do sometimes wonder if i am developing an odd form of dyslexia lately though). Just my beliefs and preferences.

I don't. Its the presumption - not by you - that because something is published it is therefore more objectively accurate than something that can be reviewed and refined by academics and experts the world over and presided over by a dedicated team that ensure clarity, objectivity and thorough references.

Von Daniken, Vorilhon, Drosnin and Sitchin can, and have, written their utter, baseless tripe in many printed versions, and yet would struggle massively to get their hypotheses accepted as serious objective theories on wiki as they have very little academic research to back it up, and what they have done (especially in the cases of Drosnin and Sitchin) is wildly inaccurate.

I'm not saying that every internet resource is reliable, about 5% probably is, vastly less than the amount of reliable books that are published every year, but it is madness to say that just because someone has their ideas in print that they're a valid, objective and academic resource.

I read his book, very interesting piece of fiction, the places he describes seem wonderful, and the robots to serve you once you go to their planet, damn, id pick mine to look like Jessica Alba, but from Sin City, not know, for one she preggos, but another she got too skinny.
Realians are cool ass people for the most part, down to earth, free spirits. Just don’t give them too much of your money.

I have personally never had any issues of falsehoods with wikipedia. Granted I use the resource very rarely.

Back on topic:

Raelians sound like scientologists that don't live in hollywood, but just down the road. I personally define religion as a political body whos laws are based off a a set of rigid moral beliefs. So if that is the case, then there is no need for truth, there is only the need for compliance. Truth can be within religions, but religions are not wholly of truth. I guess what I'm saying is...this Rael fellow is full of it and has found a way to gain what he desires by the faithful compliance of the "movements" followers. Sex, money, whatever it may be. Evolution "creates" some really nasty parasites from time to time.

I think Lilly's quite right. Wikipedia isn't a perfect source of information, but it's pretty good. As long as you have a decent set of critical reading skills -- i. e., you don't just accept everything you see, or believe everything you want to be believe. If you know how to check sources, recognize and evaluate opinion, and weigh different viewpoints, then there's no problem with Wiki pages. I certainly don't mind my students using if they have the appropriate skills.

That said, I can see why people with tenuous beliefs in fringe elements, who lack or refuse to use those critical reading skills, would not like Wiki pages since they say things the reader doesn't want to hear.

--Jaylemurph

aliens!?

can i meet one i need to talk to an intelligent lifeform for a change.

no im serious i want to meet one. not to poke fun but to get an outside the box perspective. earth is the "box".

We've heard your criticisms of Wikipedia; but why did you mention it regarding this subject? Do you feel that they unfairly maligned Mr. Vorillhon and his ventures?

Is this thread about wiki or Real.
Start a pros and cons wiki thread already.

Wikipedia (as opposed to the references it contains) as a quoted source of information irks me. It's like hearing a symphony and then all of a sudden someone blows a false note. It's like nails on my cerebral chalkboard.

Lets keep this thread on topic please everyone; we're discussing the Raelian movement, not Wikipedia.