With regard to the contentiousness, I strongly suspect the two of you are approaching the subject from two completely different aspects.
Quix, you see things from a prophetic point-of-view. And Kevmo, you are the logician.
I would that you both laid aside any impressions or suspicions and instead just try to hear the other out to whatever extent that is possible.
Thanks for your exhortation.
Will endeavor to do as you suggest.
May also, hopefully with discernment, continue to resist heavy handed pressure, demands etc. which convey a destructive attitude to such threads. Usually it’s the naysayers conveying such attitudes. Am not interested in those on our side chronically demonstrating a similar attitude.
Nevertheless, oil on the waters is good.
I strongly suspect the two of you are approaching the subject from two completely different aspects. Quix, you see things from a prophetic point-of-view. And Kevmo, you are the logician.
***Thanks AG. Seeing things from a prophetic point of view is nothing new to me. I often post commentaries on threads that we as a culture are headed straight for Revelations Chapter 13. I have looked at the UFO controversy through that prism as well and, (see post #246) that has already been covered in this thread. If anything, my inductive approach has reinforced my own prophetic point of view, they are not mutually exclusive. Basically, I have viewed this subject matter through the same prism as Quix, and I have found it inferior to the more rational approach.
The whole controversy reminds me of how Feinman approached the beauty of a flower, and how his friend was haughty that the artistic approach was the better way to see the flower.
http://www.FreeScienceLectures.com This video is from 1981. The interview is also the subject of Feynman’s book The Pleasure of Finding Things Out. I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s some times taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, “look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree, I think. And he says, “you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.” And I think he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure... also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting - it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question - does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are... why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.
http://www.FreeScienceLectures.com