Prophesy or self delusion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike the wiz

​

. . . trying to judge the God of the bible.

---

I was once a genuine Christian. And it was (in large part) exactly this type of "Great and Powerful Oz" routine, intended to keep me from looking behind the curtain, that first made me suspicious that there was a serious lack of substance backing Christianity.Amlodhi

Apparently - I needn't worry much, as I am not a christian according to Paulk - even though I'm pretty sure he'd say Hitler was one.

What a surprising rant! I am surprised and dissapointed.I think you are too close the specifics of the prophesies. Let's take a different tack on it.Every year the tabloids in the super market have headlines of somebody or another's "predictions" for the coming year. "Space ships land on white house lawn in 2005", for example. There are usually 20 or 30 or so. Let's say that this year the predictions are all made by Hindu's who say that Shiva gave them the power to make such predictions to show that He is the true god.If they all came true there would be a number of people pretty impressed even if you wouldn't be. Perhaps the government would ask them to come on the payroll to make predictions for the next year.Wouldn't you want those "predictions" to have to meet some reasonable criteria? What would those criteria be? How would you show someone that the "predictions" were bogus and should not have tax dollars spent on them?You are dealing with someone who is impressed with some predictions. What would you suggest they use so as not to be fooled?All I see in your post is that you don't like the outcome of applying any rules. You haven't touched on why the rules are flawed for general use in evaluating predictions. Until you do you look like someone who is playing some game and when you don't like the score you want the rules changed in your favour. Not something I'd have expected from you Mike.

Ned, Ned, Ned...You underestimate my belief. I fight a dozen or more so unbelievers, I cannot agree with you on this issue.People say that they are dissapointed in me - but to be honest, they are only fellow-servant's also to me. I only seek honour from God, for example when Amhodli said that mentioning the Spirit was rhetoric - mike was upset and dissapointed, yet mike knows he is nought to be dissapointed. You see, i fight a big crowd and I have to get harsh on these critters. The problem holds so many logical problems though, that much I know, and the outcome remains the same Ned. You see they read the bible THEN make the rules.Remember the specific biblecode prediction about that politician guy getting murdered, BEFORE it happened? --> Extremely specific, yet afterward - mobydick also predicted it = specificity not always gauruntees truth. This much I will tell you but that's only because I haven't debated prophecy with you before. And still I can say that Dan mis-understands truth after my lengthy efforts in other threads.Validity and truth. So easily are people ttaken by the first and then presume the latter.If it's a valid prophecy, they'll hold it true, but that isn't logical. Example of valid argument yet untrue.1. All birds are pigs
2. mike is a birdC. Mike is a pig.Valid yet untrue. Yet true unliterally + complications.another;1. all vague statements are not prophecies
2. Jesus makes a vague statement about warsc. Jesus did not make a proper prophecy.Valid yet untrue - Jesus was accurate, and could have still seen a vision, we can show validity but not truth.Now our happy unbeliever exits the forum chuffed to bits with his valid rules, yet he has not removed truth.

You mean the one they didn't "find" until after he was dead? How does that prove anything?This is the phenomenon of prophecy "retrodiction", where we interpret statements in the light of current events in such a way that they appear to have "predicted" the event; but in doing so, we ignore other, equally valid interpretations that are either not predictions, or predict erroneous things.The reason we ask for these criteria is not to trip you up, it's to eliminate the possibility of retrodiction, which is always a more likely explanation that supernatural clairvoyance. Surely we all agree that a truly valid, supernatural prediction will not simply be the result of retrodiction? No, actually, your argument is invalid because its predicated on false premises. That's the "fallacy of false premises."This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-07-2004 12:15 AM

I asked: Then you said:

quote:

---

I think it unreasonable that you think you can judge which is a true prophecy over the Spirit. I think unbelievers do not have the right to say which is true and which is false. Why should you none-believers decide, and then say such things as "no one prophecy is good enough"....LOL, say all you want - but you won't decide if it's true or not, and your judgements won't matter to me, or your rules.

---

...I guess you chose option b, then, eh?You already believed when you heard about the prophecies.They were not instrumental in your deciding to believe or not.What you are saying however, is that you believe because of the prophecies, but what seems to be actually true is that you think the prophecies are true because you believe that they are true.Indeed, you even pretty much say that those who don't already believe won't be able to believe that the prophecies are true.Well, OK, but then the prophecies are only meaningful to people who already believe. Big deal.

quote:

---

But I mean, Schraff(sic) admitted to Isaiah being accurate by saying that the NT correlates with it.

---

What I said was that I thought, as many Christian Biblical scholars also think, that the early Christians wrote the NT with the OT open beside them so as to make Jesus look as though he was the Messiah.They did this, not to be liars, but because this is the kind of thing that Jewish authors of scripture had been doing for centuries; a story that is not literally true is no less "true" in spirit. The fish got bigger, fought harder, etc., because a big fish story is better than a little fish story.Remember, the people who wrote the NT were mostly not contemporary with Jesus, and in some cases they were hearing the stories hundreds of years after the fact.How likely do you think it is that the stories didn't get spruced up a bit, or perhaps completely changed, in the telling in hundreds of years of telling, mike?

quote:

---

here we have carnal unbelieving man thinking he can decide which prophecy of the bible is true or not, honestly - this really does make me feel physically sick and truly offends the spirit. And furthermore they all think this highly acceptable. Bizarro

---

So, you are still choosing option B; that you were already a believer when you heard about the prophecies and they had no role in convincing you that you should believe in Chritianity. Furthermore, you have made it clear that you believe that only people who already believe that the prophecies are true are qualified to determine the truth of the prophecies.Wow, that's really vigorous investigative work, there, mike.Now, let me ask you this. Do you believe that the following prophecy, made long before the Bible or Jesus existed, is accurate and true?

quote:

---

You see they read the bible THEN make the rules.

---

No, the rules are the rules.They apply to ANY PREDICTION OR PROPHECY.It doesn't matter who makes them.

You say it makes you want to throw up, but why? If that rule isn't there, then examples like, "One day, a bunch of stuff will happen" qualify as valid prophecy. That's our reason for wanting it in there.Not including "one day, a bunch of stuff will happen" as a valid prophecy makes you want to throw up? You might want to see a doctor. That can't be right. I see... you argued a point for over seven pages because you weren't involving yourself in the thread.Interesting. I'm sorry... I wasn't aware that Mike was a God, and therefore above the logical constraints of man.How very audacious, indeed. I'm curious as to exactly how many times you need it explained to you that the truth of the prophecy matters for sweet fuck-all when it comes to whether the prophecy is worth even half a rat's ass."I predict that Chicago will have unpleasant weather sometime in the next year".It's true. So? Once again, Mike repeats himself without addressing rebuttals. There oughtta be a forum rule about that.Oh, wait... there is.Sure, we've all read the Bible. So? We've also given you numerous logical reasons for each one of the rules, that have nothing to do with the Bible. You have yet to respond to any of them. Yeah. Next we'll be throwing down really ridiculous shit, like "the prophecies must be written in language, and not interpretive dance". What if God wants to express himself by shaking his groove thang? Who are we to say, "Um, that's not a prophecy, it's just some crazy guy on the red line who won't stop dancing"? I prefer the term "manimal". When did you pass the rules? You keep saying you did with Isaiah, but you steadfastly refuse to even look directly at my question about its fulfillment.Given that God's existence is in question, how can Isaiah be considered fulfilled? God's actions are required for its fulfillment.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Let's get this right down to brass tacks. Mike has a problem with the rules. Let's see, in no uncertain terms, what sorts of prophecies will have to be included as valid if each individual rule is removed.Without rule 1: "Sometime in the future, a bunch of stuff will happen."Without rule 2: "In the year 2845, a robot will stage a coup aboard a spaceship, becoming the first electronic mutineer in history. This will be a direct result of a Republican president taking office in the early 21st century."Without rule 3: "In the year 1999, terrorists will destroy the World Trade Center".Without rule 4: "Within the next ten minutes, a rain storm will break out inside my office. Oh, wait, a rainstorm just broke out inside my office. Honest."Without rule 5: "And lo, the dragon shall meet with the snake, and thus shall ever more be atop the world."Without rule 6: "My roommate will sing the score from HMS Pinafore. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go ask my roommate to sing the score from HMS Pinafore."So let's be very clear... Mike is saying that we should not have these rules. Mike is also not providing any alternative to these rules. By extension, Mike is saying that the above six prophecies are completely and utterly valid.If Mike does not think the above prophecies are valid, let's hear him explain why.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

An argument can be worthless even when validly deduced, which was my point. ( But it's you guys making them not me, geez )I searched for these on an engine: (sh**e I didn't copy the links)- but I know Crash is smart and therefore will not accuse me of making it up; My point was that you make rules for prophecies (NOT ME CRASH?!), example;All vague statements are not prophecies(Is this a truth Crash)?
Christ makes vague statement about warYou conclude. Christ's war statements are not prophecies.While the argument is validly deduced - like you say, if the premises are false.......Editeed out boo boo This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-08-2004 10:23 AM

I don't know where you got this, but it's terrible. Just because all aliens are redheads, it does not logically follow that all redheads are aliens. In other words, the conclusion is not necessarily drawn from the premises.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Wow - you're right, I think it should have been;all redheads are aliens
my grandmother was a redheadmy grandmother was an alien. -- I pasted two seperate links but I think the rest is accurate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Carroll

​

. . . the conclusion is not necessarily drawn from the premises.

---

Hello Dan,That was my immediate reaction also.

quote:

---

Posted by mike the wiz

​

. . . the conclusion is necessarily drawn from the premises.

---

Maybe that explains something other than what was intended.[edited to add: Crossposted with mike's last explanatory post. Understood, accidents happen. I withdraw my comment.]AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 10-08-2004 10:27 AM