ufodigestpast.com recently posted an article with the title, "The Idea that the Biblical Concept of the New Jerusalem is a UFO ‘Mothership' is Ludicrous at Best" (February 11, 2009) by Stephen Yulish. In that article, Mr. Yulish wrongly attacked me because UFO activity in his mind "involves rebellious, ungodly fallen angels."
I do respect Mr Yulish's viewpoint on that matter. But I don't appreciate his personal attacks on my integrity or my honesty. Remarks like: "He should have stuck with fashion," are unwarranted and unfair. Unlike Mr. Yulish, I never had "a head-on collision with Jesus Christ." I have an enlightened, open-minded first acquaintance with Jesus.
I'm all for good old-fashioned "philosophical arguments" (and apologies). But I don't believe in hitting below the belt. Mr. Yulish's conviction that the "word of the cross is foolishness" to me is way off center. I only wonder who Stephen Yulish imagines his target audience to be. Who is likely to snicker in agreement with him when they read such an evident hate sermon?
There are plenty of scholars (far more significant than Mr. Yulish) who firmly believe that God and His angels use advanced technology. This is the position I sought to concentrate on, not the questionable theory that alien visitors were mistaken for "gods" – as Yulish tries so hard to make me appear to champion. It seems that Mr. Yulish is in fact attacking pastor Barry H. Downing, author of "The Bible and Flying Saucers," for first suggesting that God and His heavenly messengers use technology. Yulish merely uses me as the nearest straw man for his verbal assaults.
When Yulish mocks "a fallacious study of Biblical events where events like ‘The Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night' (Exodus 13:21) which guided the Israelites fleeing Egypt explained as an UFO," he clearly disagrees with Downing's hypothesis. But, all things considered, we still need some meaningful expressions to describe a flying "pillar" in modern language. If you don't believe that angels use technology, you must also reject the Biblical certainty that angels wear sandals, sit at tables, brandish swords, ride in chariots, and use other man-made "items" that fit under the general category of "technology." You must also reject the Biblical principle that "streets paved with gold" require heavenly technology.
Stephen Yulish indicts me of a "longwinded nonsensical rant" when I mention that a splendid "city" descending intact from the sky would probably be called a UFO by most modern observers. He apparently cannot notice the lexicon's connection between the terms "bride" and "mothership" – both abstract female representations. I gave a recent example of a UFOreported as large as "a mall" cited by Linda Moulton Howe on her web site.
|Click on the 'NEXT' arrow for page 2