Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Global2010; Legatus; Amityschild; Brad's Gramma; Cvengr; DvdMom; firebrand; GiovannaNicoletta; ...

I tend to try rather frequently to give a straight, sober, thoughtful response when seriously asked to do so . . . even by a number of pretty nasty, mean-spirited RC’s.

This topic would be a good one for y’all to return the favor on.


779 posted on 09/21/2010 7:51:09 AM PDT by Quix (PAPAL AGENT DESIGNEE: Resident Filth of non-Roman Catholics; RC AGENT DESIGNATED: "INSANE")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 768 | View Replies ]


To: Quix
This topic is so difficult for me.

It seems to require an antecedent act of faith in ET's on the one hand and accompanying acts of incredulity on the other.

I am inclined to believe that what happened at Fatima is what we say happened. If I stand back from it as though I had no dog in the fight, I still wonder how the healing miracles could have happened. If by the prince of demons we cast out demons, by whom do the ET's cast them out?

That's not meant to say that "your side" is demonic. It's to say that one has to start by saying the Catholics (or most of 'em) are wrong and dishonest and the other side is reliable.

But then as evidence we have a painting, presented in a fuzzy way and cited as evidence of flying saucers. But a closer look at the painting reveals an interesting attempt at a portrayal of the infinite in the finite, of the Spirit of God descending like a dove with a huge aureole around it.

TO those who came into the game thinking it's evidence of flying saucers, the dove is discounted. To those who come into the game with an awareness of traditional iconography and of the development of art in the Renaissance, it's an instance of that development, nothing more.

We all know that it's easy to muster evidence for any conspiracy theory, for almost any conjecture. And it's even easier if the evidence is presented in a blurry way, with the pesky details reduced to a white blob. But a pile of conjectures added to a few pieces of ambiguous evidence is not a proof.

Look: If there is a 50% probability that A is true, and the same probability for B, C, and D, then:
- There is a 25% probability that A AND B are true;
- a 12.5% probability that A, B, and C are true; and
- a .0625 probability that A, B, C, and D are true.

Then there is the question of what in my life would I change if some of this were true. I am going to die in any event, unless the end comes soon. I am tried every day. In response I have recourse to God as often as I can. What should I change if a flying saucer appears in the sky?

That's about as far as I can take it right now. I hope this is at least clear.

781 posted on 09/21/2010 8:37:30 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 779 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson