|
Author
|
Topic: Prophecy for Buzsaw
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
Re: old news
So lets get this straight. Your complaint is that the text of Rule 1 includes an example of the sort of prophecy it is supposed to exclude ? What exactly is wrong with that ? Now let me point out yet again the point of the rules is to idnetify those prophecies which should be considered good examples in the sense that they are good evidence of the supernatural (or timetravel :-). So naturally it has to go on the content of the prophecy rather than biasing the judgement by giving a "free pass" to any prophecy attributed to Jesus. Doing otherwise - which is what you are insisting on - is an obvious example of bias. And let me point out that the fact that you have chosen to ignore the evidence I have produced does not mean that I have produced none.
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 92 of 385 (77967)
01-12-2004 9:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by joshua221
01-11-2004 9:00 PM
|
|
Re: Buz, please ignore lame topics
quote:
Dan, I don't see any miracles yet.
I have performed miracles. The evidence is that I say so. Happy now? 
"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity." -Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by joshua221, posted 01-11-2004 9:00 PM | | joshua221 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 116 by joshua221, posted 01-12-2004 7:34 PM | | Dan Carroll has replied |
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: old news
Mike the Wiz writes: Does rule 1 include or not include a "prophecy" by Christ concerning war? Mike. Five. Freakin'. Pages ago. I asked you:
Me writes: Would it make you feel more comfortable if rule 1 said, "The prophecy must be specific. The determining factor in deciding specificity is that there must be only one event, one person, one whatever, etc, in history to which the prophecy could reasonably apply"? I've also asked you repeatedly for your own set of rules, or your specific problems with the rules, so that we can try to reach some sort of compromise on how to read a prophecy. I haven't used any sort of insults toward you. I would appreciate some sort of resposne.
"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity." -Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still< !--UE--> [This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 01-12-2004]
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 94 of 385 (77969)
01-12-2004 9:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
01-12-2004 9:36 AM
|
|
Missing my point - you could be missing a TRUTH
an example of the sort of prophecy Yet as you say, it's a Prophecy. Think about it....... It's in the NT with all the other Prophecies. A good rule would give an example of a vague claim, without being Biased and mentioning a specific and important persons Prophetic words. What if the Prophecy was true. And everyone ignored it because of rule 1. I know you are saying it's vague Prophecy, that's not my point. As for your evidence, it turned out to be wrong. As I dissected it and even shown you how it made perfect sense if you read it properly. But you still accused me, saying I don't know what I am writing, even when I REMEMBER writing to the wind, in amusement! how can I think you will be honest with me in debate from now on?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2004 9:36 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 98 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2004 10:07 AM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
Yes Dan....Absolutely
Sorry Dan, I was getting so many responses. I should have replied. You state a new rule 1. I FULLY accept it. Here it is, a much improved effort for everyone to now read: RULE1 "The prophecy must be specific. The determining factor in deciding specificity is that there must be only one event, one person, one whatever, etc, in history to which the prophecy could reasonably apply"? Published by Dan Carrol, and fully acceptable by MTW> Yes , you did refrain from judging me..I won't forget that. And just look how quickly this was solved without insults. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-12-2004]
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
Re: Yes Dan....Absolutely
Cool. If there are no problems with 2-6, perhaps we can start things up. Iron Man presented a prophecy... anyone want to take it on?
"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity." -Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 95 by mike the wiz, posted 01-12-2004 9:53 AM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: 10-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 97 of 385 (77975)
01-12-2004 10:06 AM
|
|
|
OK, if there are no more issues...the rules currently stand as follows.
1. The prophecy must be specific. The determining factor in deciding specificity is that there must be only one event, one person, one whatever, etc, in history to which the prophecy could reasonably apply. 2. The complete prophecy must be fulfilled. If parts are fulfilled and parts not fulfilled then the prophecy is not considered fulfilled. In other words, you can't pick and choose predictions out of a longer prophecy. 3. The prophecy must be interpreted in the context in which it appears. A prophecy about one time period or geographic region or political entity can't be reinterpreted into other venues. 4. The event or person or whatever that fulfills the prophecy must have extra-Biblical corroboration. 5. The original prophecy itself must be interpreted in a straightforward way, not in some convoluted way. 6. If the prophecy is mundane and easy to satisfy, then it must not have been previously known to the person, group, whatever, that fulfills it.
AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe [This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 01-12-2004]
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
Re: Missing my point - you could be missing a TRUTH
Mike is it my imgaination or are you TOTALLY ignoring my point that the rules are supposed to identify those examples of "prophecy" that are good evidence of the supernatural ? Because what you are saying makes very little sense otherwise. Why is it "bias" to use something Jesus (supposeldy) said as an example of a prophecy too vague to be considered good evidence of the supernatural if it really IS too vague to be considered good evidence of the supernatural ? And no you did NOT "dissect" my evidence at all. And may I ask what reason YOU have to Distrust ME ? YOu're the one making all the false accusations.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by mike the wiz, posted 01-12-2004 9:50 AM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
Re: Yes Dan....Absolutely
So the real problem here was the fact that you kept complaining that the rule was biased when in fact you saw nothing wrong with the rule itself. And we know that because you just accepted the rule - the only change was to delete the example. Your real objection seems ot be that you didn't want it mentioned that one of Jesus prophecies - or to be more accurate a part of one of Jesus prophecies since Jesus didn't offer "there will be wars and ruimours of wars" as a prophecy by itself - was vague. But I see a new problem. The actual discussions are likely involve applying the rules to prophecies attributed to Jesus. If one of Jesus' prophecies is ruled out on the basis of these rules will you accept that ?
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
Message 100 of 385 (77986)
01-12-2004 10:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by PaulK
01-12-2004 10:21 AM
|
|
You just dunno when to quit
Man, you just can't shut this argument up can you. Stop "saying, what I am saying or implying", it's annoying, I know exactly what I am saying . No, I accept ALL of Jesus' prophecies,But the rules for people here though, who do believe, don't believe and could be on the fence, well for those people, there has to be rules of fair debate. If they find one of Jesus' prophecied untrue in this debate, that wont mean I do. Let's be honest though, I win because I have managed to change the rules via people who are unbiased. Now, the rules do not include a Prophecy THEMSELVES. Therefore they are NOW unbiased. So Paul, why don't you stop whining....don't be a sore loser.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2004 10:21 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 101 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2004 10:46 AM | | mike the wiz has not replied | | | Message 103 by mark24, posted 01-12-2004 10:56 AM | | mike the wiz has replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
Re: You just dunno when to quit
Mike, I think you're the one who doesn't know when to quit. I ask you to explain what you mean to give you a chance to clarify your statements in case I have misunderstood them. So why do you complain about it ? And no Mike you HAVEN'T changed the rules as such. All that happened was that an example was removed - the rule itself is completely unchanged. So no, I'm not a "sore loser" because I didn't lose.
|
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 102 of 385 (77989)
01-12-2004 10:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 101 by PaulK
01-12-2004 10:46 AM
|
|
Re: You just dunno when to quit
All right, guys. We got it. Each of you knows the other one is, but what are you. Can we get down to some prophecy-testin'?
"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity." -Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still< !--UE--> [This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 01-12-2004]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2004 10:46 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 104 by PaulK, posted 01-12-2004 10:59 AM | | Dan Carroll has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
Re: You just dunno when to quit
Mike
Let's be honest though, I win because I have managed to change the rules via people who are unbiased. Now, the rules do not include a Prophecy THEMSELVES. Therefore they are NOW unbiased. The rule always was unbiased. It just gave an example that wasn't acceptable because it wasn't specific. You have accepted the rule without the example, so go back & tell me why the example prophecy in & of itself isn't unspecific. In accepting rule 1 you implicitly accept that "there will be wars and rumors of wars" is unacceptable. So what was your beef all along? The rule is exactly the same as it always was. The text that actually constitutes the rule is utterly & completely unchanged, the only difference is that an example has been removed. Now, do you have a problem with rules 2-6? If not, we can crack on. Mark
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.5
|
Re: You just dunno when to quit
Hey I'm already engaged with Buzsaw on his claims about the Olivet Discourse, but he's fading. Iron Man's "prophecy" ? Well the big problem is that the actual events of the prophecy haven't happened yet. So it falls foul of Rule 2 and Rule 4.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 102 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-12-2004 10:50 AM | | Dan Carroll has not replied |
|
mike the wiz
Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: 05-24-2003
|
|
|
Message 105 of 385 (77995)
01-12-2004 11:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 103 by mark24
01-12-2004 10:56 AM
|
|
The End
In accepting rule 1 you implicitly accept that "there will be wars and rumors of wars" is unacceptable. No I don't. You're putting words in my mouth again. I think it's a true Prophecy that doesn't necessarily make a good example in this/here debate. Because of the rules of debate - are strict, and so the truth of the Prophecy might not be recognised, but I still believe it. But like Dan said......this is over now. We are stopping the topic with this farce. I think I'm right you think your right, agree? I offer my hand again.. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-12-2004]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 103 by mark24, posted 01-12-2004 10:56 AM | | mark24 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 106 by mark24, posted 01-12-2004 11:27 AM | | mike the wiz has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2