Posted on 07/08/2010 8:54:20 AM PDT by 0beron
Edited on 07/08/2010 9:57:44 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
It was a slam at the Clinton Administration -- as I thought the final quip about Al Gore indicated.
(Hey, this *is* FR, after all...)
Cheers!
C.S. Lewis was in love with it.
Cheers!
Sorry.
I don’t keep everyone’s sensibilities straight. Particularly when I’m churning about other important matters that are taking longer than I like to lay aside.
I’ll try and look it up on Amazon.
Thx.
Good post,Mark. Besides,if there was another form of intellectual life equal or grater than us it would seem to put them in a class of something other than "made in the image of God",thus making them either animals,angels or demons.
They certainly would not be descendants of Adam and Eve unless they had technology to travel to other planets. There is no logical proof of this either
I'm sure he wouldn't mind at all. Here's the story he told me.
He and his father and his dog, Buck (an Alaskan Malamute) were taking a midnight stroll out on the sand flats off Scusset Beach, which sits on Cape Cod Bay in Sandwich, Massachusetts. This was maybe 25 years ago. It was low tide and so the sand flats extended about a mile offshore.
So, they were having this lovely stroll on a lovely midsummer's night when all of a sudden, there was this unidentifiable aerial craft looming directly before them; it had come "out of nowhere." It had turned on its lights, which was the only way it could have been detected by human observers at night since it moved completely soundlessly. And with great speed, fantastically agile in all directions of movement. And then it trained its lights on B and his dad, and rapidly closed in on them, holding its position about 25 yards distant, maybe 25 feet above sea level. As if it were observing or studying them.
Instantly, Buck had gone into defensive mode: He got out between his people and the mysterious craft and started barking furiously. B was totally shocked by the spectacle before him. When he finally recovered his wits, he called Buck to heel, and the three of them wheeled and ran as fast as their legs could carry them back to the beach. The craft simply disappeared as mysteriously as it had first appeared....
Now, at the time, nearby Otis Air Base was fully operational. So at first B wondered whether this might have been some sort of secret military craft. But on further consideration this seemed to him unlikely — because the soundlessness of the craft, and its highly unusual manner of movement were completely unlike anything that man can produce, then or now.
In any case, B believes that what he and his father saw (not to mention that Buck saw it, too) was a UFO. My FIL refuses to discuss the incident to this day. Evidently, whatever it was had shaken him up pretty badly.
Well, that's it, dear brother in Christ! What do you make of it?
What was the SHAPE
of the craft?
How large was it?
It sounds like a fairly typical case.
I suspect that IF they had THOUGHT some specific thing about the craft moving to the right or left . . . it might well have done so in response.
Also, it would be interesting to enquire about whether they FELT any particular sensations in their body.
And, did they have ANY THOUGHTS which may have not been all that typical of them.
Also, did they feel any particular sensation or feeling “come over them” as though an intangible blanket descending on them?
The dog’s response was quite exceptional. There’s often barking etc. However, about as often or more so is cowering and running and hiding. Many times, the animals appear to be frozen, immobile—sometimes in mid-step or mid-bark.
Were there any unusual smells?
Sounds like they perceived it to be utterly silent—which is also very common. Sometimes there’s a low frequency hum.
Sometimes, there’s a kind of ‘ionizaton’ sound and smell.
THX THX.
Much appreciate your responses.
I should copy and file this into a FREEPER file of such.
I’d have a thick file by now if I’d been doing it from the beginning. Sigh.
New to me...but I’ll check it out.
Just curious (honestly) but would you consider a serious discussion about the existence of fallen angels embarrassing? Or of the existence of Satan...or, say, The Book of Enoch?
Yes..., I suspect that would be just as embarrassing to him, too.
And I can see how some folks can arrive at any of our UFO threads and possibly get the impression that, because they are not familiarly with the history of these discussions at FR, we might seem a little loose with the facts (FarmerW, we really aren't but in our haste we might rely on previously substantiated data) .
For FarmerW's sake, let me say the these threads rest on a vast pile of previously presented information and such discussions are not at all as "sensational" as they might seem to a person who arrives as a newcomer.
Also, to FarmerW, let me extend an invitation to ask some of the old timers to this subject any question that you think might give you a better sense of the, say, sanity of the posters here. I think you be surprised that we are no more insane than most humans --which sanity is largely in doubt anyway;-)--just willing to delve publicly into a subject intelligently that, for the most part, is as you suggest frequently relegated to the Elvis and Bigfoot section of the bookstore.
All statements we can make about reality are based upon two assumptions:
1) that a reality external to the self exists, and
2) that the impressions we receive from our senses are related to this assumed external reality in some meaningful way.
Rational people make these assumptions as a matter of course -- but we should never forget that they are assumptions, or statements of belief. No way exists to objectively prove that they are true.
Furthermore, the "scientific method" (i.e. Baconian inductive reasoning) by itself cannot conclusively prove anything. The scientific method, in basic terms, is nothing more than the process of collecting data by observation, followed by the formulation and testing of hypotheses based upon this data in order to construct a working model of some aspect of reality. This would seem to be a completely objective means of determining truth. However, upon examination, it becomes obvious that the scientific method is at its root a subjective process. For example: what exactly is "data"? We have no objective means of discriminating meaningful sensory impressions from others. One man's data is another man's irrelevancy. The very definition of data is, therefore, subjective. And how can we know that our observations are meaningful? What guarantee have we that the phenomena we observe are intrinsic to the scientific question we are asking? For all we know, our observations of a given phenomenon are entirely unrelated to the question we seek to answer. We rank observations as being meaningful or irrelevant based upon subjective choices. Finally, a hypothesis is not a fact; it is a "best guess", accepted or rejected by te scientific community base upon subjective reasons. A widely-accepted hypothesis may in fact be partially or entirely wrong.
And of course the entire Baconian scientific method rests upon one fundamental and unproveable assumption: that matter, energy, space, and time are all that exist, have ever existed, or that ever can exist. In other words, "If I cain't poke it with a stick, it ain't real." This is a statement of faith, not of fact — yet it lies behind the entire Western scientific enterprise.
To sum up: the scientific method is based upon unprovable assumptions and sensory impressions that may be false. But this is all Philosophy 101. Descartes made the basic point years ago: that all we can truly know is that which we experience directly, without use of the senses, i.e. our own existence (and that of God). We do not "sense" ourselves; we are ourselves. We cannot observe or analyze God; we experience His presence numinously. (Any God that could be quantified as data would of course be unworthy of the name.)
A conscious but anesthetized person floating in a darkened, soundproof tank of blood-temperature saline receives no sensory data of any kind, and can therefore make no meaningful statements about the world external to his or her own self. What, then, can such a person know to be true? Only one thing: such a person can know for certain that they themselves exist (and, by extension, that they did not create themselves). Descartes was wrong about a lot of things, but on this point his logic remains unassailable.
The scientific method works great in practical situations. Without it, bridges don't get built, lasers don't shine, medicine doesn't fight disease. It can be a useful map for navigating reality. But let's not make the mistake of confusing the map with the territory.
Not a Cardinal then, but a prelate of some significant standing in the Vatican sufficient to rate the title “Monsignor.” Perhaps boop is mistaken as to the prelate’s station in the Church, or perhaps she has a different official in mind.
You’ve expended an enormous amount of bandwidth and a not insignificant amount of energy to bring me this information. It is interesting; it is worthy of attention; and I thank you for your efforts.
Monsignor Balducci has also gone to some lengths to emphasize that his research is “personal” and not “official.” That puts his hypothesis in its proper perspective and we should all appreciate Monsignor’s candid revelation. He has made an assertion of material fact and, given the intellectual rigor for which the Church is renown, we must expect that Monsignor Balducci is aware that his task now is to produce material evidence. We must think that he stands as good a chance as do the Scientists who speculate that life exists elsewhere in the Universe besides here on Earth.
It is immaterial who first finds life elsewhere in the Universe (the Scientist or the Churchman). The acquisition of knowledge is a pursuit; not a race.
Thank you for your diligence and for the sharing of what you’ve learned.
Yes, other than I would not call satan a prince.
If your answer is yes, how would they go about trying to fool you, an engineer?
If I knew exactly, then they could not fool me.
Would they go about it in your professional life, your religious life, neither, or both?
That would be up to them, I suppose.
Or do you not think you are capable of being fooled?
Certainly I am. A lone human being is incapable of withstanding those forces. If satan could tempt Christ, what more could he do with any man?
I have seen nothing more concrete than the fascination of some people to a speculative subject. Some of the greatest thinkers in world history had some odd quirks. Sir Isaac Newton, by the accounts I have read, was barking mad on occasion.
They certainly would not be descendants of Adam and Eve unless they had technology to travel to other planets. There is no logical proof of this either
I'm not particularly worried about it. I don't believe that we will have any answers in our lifetimes anyway.
Thx. I ordered a used copy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.