Churchill Accused of Sealing UFO Files, Fearing Public Panic 615
Newly released secret files show that Winston Churchill ordered a cover-up of an alleged encounter between a UFO and a RAF bomber because he feared public panic. From the article: "Mr Churchill is reported to have made a declaration to the effect of the following: 'This event should be immediately classified since it would create mass panic among the general population and destroy one's belief in the Church.'"
Bad summary (Score:5, Informative)
Summary says:
It should say:
Kinda different.
Re:Bad summary (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it should say:
Contributor Summary is Incorrect (Score:2, Informative)
Re:blah (Score:2, Informative)
God creating aliens is never mentioned. And the Bible is infallible, so UFOs with an alien crew would put theologists in a bit of a bind.
The Bible being infallible doesn't mean it is an unabridged compilation of all that is knowable. It simply means it is accurate on the subjects it addresses. The Bible primarily with things such as why are we here and how are we to treat each other. Apparently the existence or non-existence of aliens is not important to those questions. If we ever do discover aliens, it would be reasonable for Christians to conclude that God created them too, but their existence isn't something we need to know about to please God.
Unfortunately, religion is not about evidence, it's about faith. Which is why religion has caused humanity so much suffering over the milleniums.
True faith is based on evidence, not opposed to evidence. If you look at the teachings of the apostles in Acts, for example, their message rested on the fact that there was a man who everyone had seen or heard of, who had done impressive miracles that many people have seen, was put to death in a very public fashion and then seen by many people alive afterwards. Surely, if these things were true, the faith that results from believing them would be one based on evidence and not warm feelings, right? Today our evidence primarily deals with the question of whether these accounts have been reliably preserved and recorded by credible witnesses. You may not find this evidence compelling, but I hope you can at least admit that there are Christians today who have come to their faith for better reasons than because their preacher said so.
Re:He saves the human race time and time again . . (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
Re:blah (Score:1, Informative)
"Anyone who thinks sitting in church can make you a Christian must also think that sitting in a garage can make you a car." — Garrison Keillor
The fact that it's "a Christian" instead of "religious" is important. Your version is actually false.... sitting in church does make you religious, at least to some extent, since you're engaging (sincerely or not) in a religious observance.
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
He probably means the YB-35 and XB-35. Jack starting working with flying wings during the 1930s. [wikipedia.org]Much like rocket technology [wikipedia.org], the Germans took original, under developed and under funded American technology and funded it.
Once radar was invented, it was noted the flying wing had a very low radar return. While this aspect was not understood, its significance was not lost on scientists and engineers. In fact, this is one of the reasons why German designers was working to create a long range, flying wing bomber, in which they intended to drop nuclear bombs on NY. The low-radar (stealth) aspect is what they believed would allow it to reach its targets without being intercepted.
Re:blah (Score:5, Informative)
Scroll down. And I mean WAAAY down, because half of the fucking comments are arguments about religion that have NOTHING to do with this story, regardless of a Churchill one-liner. Seriously, 50% of the comments below are stupid side-bars about religion.
Re:blah (Score:5, Informative)
Very few people consider hearsay alone as credible evidence, especially when all concrete evidence leads to a different conclusion AND the hearsay contains multiple self contradictions.
Re:blah (Score:5, Informative)
True, but some come to faith by evidence.
Not to religious faith, there is no evidence. Not a single piece. There isn't even a valid hypothesis let alone a theory.
Re:blah (Score:3, Informative)
it's evidence to them
Before continuing, try to find out what evidence means. There is no such thing as "evidence to them", that would be oxymoronic.
Re:blah (Score:3, Informative)
Not only that, the evidence of the existence of aliens in no way contradicts Christianity, or the theistic religions.
I can imagine a few problems for religions that believe in reincarnation (how do they account for everyone who claims to remember past lives, only remembering past lives on earth?).
The existence of aliens would be no more a challenge to Christianity then the existence of angels (a non-human intelligence, that just happens to be naturally closer to God.....).
Christianity would regard aliens a fellow servants of God.
The existence of other intelligence life and their relationship to us has often been discussed: for Christians whether they are redeemed the same way: if Christ came for all, whether there might be other incarnations for other species or different ways to redemption, etc.
It is not discussed that much because we lack material for more than speculation until we find some ETs.
Please read what the head of the Vatican observatory has to say http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/believing_in_aliens_not_opposed_to_christianity_vaticans_top_astronomer_says/ [catholicnewsagency.com]
Incidentally, while Googling for the link above, I came across a article by a Muslim who believes that the Quran confirms the existence of angels.
Re:blah (Score:2, Informative)
Gays do have all the same rights as regular people. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. And when they do so, they will get benefits on their insurance and other things that they don't get now, but guess what? US unmarried straight people don't get them either. We live with people without being married and don't get the same advantages as married people. So where is the discrimination?
Oh and please show me the marriage law that says you have to love someone or be sexually attracted to them in order to get married. I have yet to see a marriage law that says anything about love or attraction. So out side of history paralleling religious beliefs in how society was set up, there is really nothing about marriage being between a man and a woman that is discriminatory. This is why this activist judge who decided to overturn the people will see his ruling dropped on appeal. In fact, he will probably end up being disciplined by his regulatory board because of how he ran to this like an activist judge with the runs looking for a bathroom.
You see, gay couples have the same rights as unmarried couples and those rights are exactly the same as far as any law is concerned. No law takes love, attraction, or anything else the marks someone as gay or straight into consideration in it's application. Marriage is simply a legal maneuver and that it.
Re:blah (Score:3, Informative)
I've never heard of vegans being against mother's milk.