I cant believe I was first to post this on this thread...
Posted on 05/02/2021 5:13:44 AM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
Isn’t it strange how our government here in the United States reversed their position, in an instant, that UFOs were not real and that only nutty, conspiracy theory basement dwellers believed they were real? And they did it with no apologies, no explanation, no ‘filling in the blanks’ to get us all up to speed. Of course, what they don’t know is that what they are encountering are not space aliens at all, they are the fallen angels connected with the Genesis 6 giants. Welcome back, we who believe the bible have been expecting your return.
“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” Matthew 24:37 (KJB)
Now remember, when the Pentagon reveals them to us on the nightly news, in an interview streamed lived on YouTube, you didn’t miss the rapture and we are not in the Tribulation. When that happens, we will simply be witnesses the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus and the Days of Noah. When it happens, the Pretribulation Rapture will literally be moments away from taking place.
FROM THE NY POST: Luis “Lue” Elizondo, former head of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, has told The Post about the document slated for release in June under a mandate contained in former President Donald Trump’s $2.3 trillion appropriations bill for this year.
The whistleblower said the highly anticipated report will address what UFO believers have been clamoring to discover about Tic Tac-shaped objects the Navy saw in 2004, the strange “cubes within spheres” seen by naval aviators in 2014 and mysterious black triangles reported around the world.
“I am not a UFO guy, I am an investigator, my job was (simply) to collect the data and speak the truth,” Elizondo told the US Sun.
“There is something in our skies, we don’t know what it is, we don’t know how it works, we don’t know fully what it can do, we don’t know who is behind the wheel, we don’t know its intentions, and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it,” he added.
“If it turns out we have been leapfrogged technologically by a foreign adversary, then we are dealing with an intelligence failure on the level of 9/11,” Elizondo told the outlet. “It took three years to write the 9/11 report — and I am not sure if these things have been in our skies for decades that 180 days is enough time to provide the level of information Congress is asking for and deserves,” he added.
Elizondo made it clear in a press conference that UFOs have been observed to have qualities that are nothing less than otherworldly. He described vessels flying at 11,000 mph and being able to turn “instantly.” Providing a comparison, he explained, for our most advanced jets going at the same speed, “if you wanted to make a right-hand turn, it would take you about half the state of Ohio to do it.”
Elizondo resigned from the AATIP as he sought to bring the discussion about the UFOs into the mainstream, describing them as a “national security issue.”
“When I was at AATIP, our purpose was to try and find a conventional explanation,” he told the US Sun. “It was only when we exhausted all options that we became increasingly engaged.”
When asked whether Russia and China are also studying UFOs, he said, “We have every reason to believe that foreign adversarial countries are equally — if not more — interested in these topics than we are. “That has been validated through various sources. We are certain about that,” he added to the outlet.
Well said about opinions equating to beliefs.
But some people have more facts than others.
For instance, with Jesus of Nazareth, there are plenty of noncontroversial historical facts in evidence. Even His enemies acknowledged He was a vivid popular preacher Who was put to death for blasphemy, for claiming to be equal with God Himself.
This is outlined in Lee Stroebel’s book “The Case for Christ”.
That’s how you know sumthin is a fact: both opposing sides agree the events happened.
With 🛸 UFOs, the 1920s aeronautical experiments of Oscar Schrenk and Ludwig Prandtl into boundary layer control led to some astonishing advances that could have changed the course of the war. But the allies won, picked up those spoils and 2 years later we see prototypes being flown mostly near military air bases all across America.
This is outlined in Renato Vesco’s book “Intercept UFO”.
By the way, there was something you said before that I was going to respond to - but forgot:
“As a quick aside, faith is “opinion plus conviction.” People don’t sacrifice their lives for mere opinions.”
I am not sure I agree with that, but here are some related thoughts:
I do consider religious believers to be among my strongest political allies, because they will fight for freedom to live according to their religion.
I am not a religious believer, but I cherish my freedom to think and act according to my understanding of life - according to my conscience.
Even as a “non-believer”, I WILL fight for that freedom - maybe because of my Scottish heritage :-). Think Braveheart. He wasn’t fighting for religious freedom per se. According to the story, the English soldiers were routinely raping their women under the cruel practice of Prima Nocta. There are abuses other than religious persecution have been causes worth fighting for.
However, I have often wondered whether the Founders considered religious freedom to be a proxy for all other freedoms. After all, if you aren’t free to hold your own beliefs (or opinions) and live according to them, then you aren’t free at all.
Another way of looking at it is that if men are going to refuse to be ruled by other men, it makes sense to claim there is something above men that should rule all men. You call that higher authority God. I call that higher authority Justice. We don’t agree on what to call it, but I certainly think there needs to be something - and calling that higher authority God works just fine for me in that context.
So there, for what it’s worth, are some of my more affirmative views regarding religion and the religious.
The negative views I have regarding “religious believers” may be largely a question of semantics. In other words, I find some of their word choices to be a turn-off, because they infer a level certainty that doesn’t square with rational discourse. It hurts their credibility and I sometimes find myself a bit embarrassed that they are on my team. :-)
So, although I value religious believers as allies in the fight for freedom, I think they could be even MORE valuable as allies if they could adopt a more normal vocabulary when in public.
And I still haven’t heard back yet.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume intelligent life exists on other planets. Dr. Coppedge and other scientists did the math.
They found that for a polypeptide to form into an essential amino acid by chance it has odds of 10^-23 of forming on earth under the most optimum conditions. It iakes hundreds of thousands of these to form a very simple single cell lifeforms. That makes the odds utterly astronomical.
To make the odds even remotely possible for life on other planets, the universe would have to be trillions of trillions years old.
God on the other hand...He's the real deal.;-)
I like your rational approach to things. You would very likely enjoy reading the book “Jesus; God, Ghost or Guru?” by Buell and Hyde.
Jesus had some very harsh words to say about the religious leaders of His day. Vipers, buried tombs, hypocrites, sons of Satan.
People do sacrifice their lives for mere opinions. Plenty of wartime examples. Look at those cultists who committed mass suicide to catch a ride on the comet Hale-Bopp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_group)
And there's a lot of money to be made in the religion bidness.
I think their opinions were converted into strong convictions by brainwashing and indoctrination.
What if the believers are the ones left behind?
Luke 17:37 - There shall be two women grinding together; the one shall be taken and the other left. And they answering say unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Where the body is, thither will the eagles also be gathered together.”
The ‘eagles’ representing carrion eaters. Considering some commentary it seems the question needs to be asked; are the disciples wanting to know where the ‘taken’ go?
Yes, I think “religion”’ is just a generic word that most people take to mean a person’s beliefs about a deity - creation, the afterlife, etc..
Many “religions” derive from a written document believed to be a spiritual revelation from the deity.
What is interesting to me is how many different religions there are - each one absolutely certain that the other religions are wrong. :-)
Thanks - l’ll look for it.
To the earlier point made by enumerated, a conviction is just another word for an opinion, a strong opinion.
You can KNOW sumthin and not be able to prove it. Ask some women who have been raped.
I KNOW that OJ Simpson murdered 2 people.
The DNA and physical evidence was overwhelming. But proving it to the point a jury convicts, that’s a completely different matter.
I KNOW that the 2020 election was fraudulently stolen.
I cant believe I was first to post this on this thread...
“To the earlier point made by enumerated, a conviction is just another word for an opinion, a strong opinion.”
Yes, I agree with that.
I think the real question here may be: When is it appropriate to use subjective language in conversation vs. when objective language is more appropriate?
In other words, if I state an “opinion” - a “conviction” even - that will be seen as a subjective view on my part. The words “opinion”, “conviction and “understanding” all imply subjectivity. They are usually accompanied by a personal pronoun to reinforce the subjectivity. “My opinion”. “His convictions”. “Your understanding”.
The words “fact” and “truth”, on the other hand, are not normally used in a subjective way. You can’t have your own personal facts or truths.
When I am talking with certain religious people, I notice they seem unwilling to use words that attribute subjectivity to their beliefs. They often come right out and say “No! It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact.” They even seem a bit offended by the idea that their belief would be called a mere opinion.
I’m not sure why this is - perhaps they feel their choice of words is a test of their faith, and if they allow their belief to be called an opinion, it will somehow diminish their faith.
Whatever the reason for it, I find it a little off-putting, because if two people who disagree are to have a civil conversation, it seems disrespectful for one person to claim objective truth. Basically, they are insisting that the other person is ignorant and wrong from the outset. Not a great way to start a conversation!
Perhaps if they didn’t want to be disrespectful, there is a vocabulary that religious believers could use when among those with shared beliefs - and another vocabulary to be used in the general public.
Just a suggestion.
I think that's exactly what it is.
Perhaps they are going through some trials and tribulations and their faith is a bit shaky at the moment.
Building faith is, in my experience, very much like athletics. You are always lifting heavier weights or running a longer distance or trying for a better time, and never quite sure you are up to the challenge.
Very true.
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.