Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )
   Mobile App






Forum Rules Enter at own risk!

The Philosophy, Science & Religion forum has been created as an unmoderated forum. The issues discussed here can and will get very intense. Please show respect and appreciation to alternative views posted here. We appreciate your consideration.

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Prophecy, Any takers?
Bookmark and Share
 
Are earth events prophecy being fulfilled?
Yes, absolutely. [ 9 ]  [40.91%]
No, not at all. [ 4 ]  [18.18%]
Maybe, not sure. [ 5 ]  [22.73%]
Other. [ 4 ]  [18.18%]
Total Votes: 22
Guests cannot vote 
SCShamrock 
Posted on 31-Oct-2005, 02:00 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





The nineteenth century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard railed against the cosmological proof of the existence of God (a perspective I have embraced my entire life) and almost any other conceivable argument there has ever been for trying to "prove" God. He was, however, a Christian. This may seem to be a conflicting perspective, but Kierkegaard saw it this way:

If you try to "reason" that there is a god, and you do so successfully, then there is no reason to have faith. For if you are already completely convinced that God exists, by means of reasoning him out, then there is nothing for you to have faith in. You need no other motivation for acknowledging him. The point is, he believed that you first reckon God to exist, within yourself and apart from rationalizing, then you are in a better position to rationalize the existence of all other things. I see a lot of wisdom in this perspective.

Yet again, an argument for God that I also love is by the 17th century philosopher Gottfried Willhelm, Baron von Leibniz. He authored the "principle of sufficient reason." It goes like this....for every occurrence, there is a sufficient reason. When thunder claps, the sufficient reason is the lightning that struck. And the lightning because of the colliding of water molecules within a cloud. And the cloud from the evaporation of water from Earth's surface. This cycle should continue indefinitely, but it doesn't. There is always the point (I call it the day before the big bang) when there is no sufficient reason for something happening. According to Leibniz, anything outside this chain is it's own sufficient reason, and that is God. Its not a complicated idea, but one that should be thought about for more than two seconds.

I just thought I would throw those in there since the thread is kind of transforming into a few stray thoughts. smile.gif


--------------------
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.
~Mark Twain
PMEmail Poster               
Top
reddrake79 
Posted on 31-Oct-2005, 08:16 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Braveheart Member
******

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 132
Joined: 10-Mar-2004
ZodiacRowan

Realm: oregon

male





Stormeil
a question

Doesn't the seeker set up his own system of belief in non-belief here? Many of the statements you have used against belief systems can also apply to the "seeker". You are defending the idea of seeking just as vigorusly as people who have belief in an ideal. You mentioned "this kind of organization of mind completely colors cognition" yet you have a very organised and logical train of thought in your post, just like many religous people (evidenced in this thread). Are you sure aren't seeing what you want to see in rationalizing that people "need" a belief system? Ask any teenager what he believes you'll get everything from well thought out answers by some to sarcastic (Looooooove. smile.gif ) to, "nothing" to "I don't know" They obviously have some beliefs (my teacher is evil) but many consciously do not think about it and they get through just fine, some don't (thats a tragedy for a different discussion)

Pointed question to follow: We have been talking about validating a source through prophecy yet you havn't addressed specific issues that have been brought up, such as prophecy that has been fulfilled. Its not a philosophical question here: people said specific things would happen in the future. Those things happend and there is no way those people could have affected the outcome. What you believe does not change the outcome. Does this not then beg the "seeker" to objectivly consider their claims about other things? Or where they lying part of the time, and if so which part? and how do you know they are lying?


--------------------
Friendship, Love, and Loyalty
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted on 05-Nov-2005, 12:10 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





QUOTE (reddrake79 @ 31-Oct-2005, 08:16 PM)
Stormeil
a question

Many of the statements you have used against belief systems can also apply to the "seeker".  You are defending the idea of seeking just as vigorusly as people who have belief in an ideal. 

Pointed question to follow:  We have been talking about validating a source through prophecy yet you havn't addressed specific issues that have been brought up, such as prophecy that has been fulfilled.  Its not a philosophical question here: people said specific things would happen in the future.  Those things happend and there is no way those people could have affected the outcome.  What you believe does not change the outcome. 

First, I don't think Stoirmeil is taking a position one way or the other concerning "seekers vs believers". She's making observations about human tendencies and responses to existential questions.

Her post has direct implications on your statements about prophecies being fulfilled above. Verification of direct relationship between prophecy and subsequent occurance is dubious and is usually not very objective because a conflict between verifiability and philosophical and psychological self preservation ensues when conclusions to be drawn are interwoven with the needs of personal belief systems. So you see the concerns of philosophy and psychology do apply. They're even implicated when they're discounted as irrelevant. The question is to what degree do you want to address them....or how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go Neo?



--------------------
Yr hen Gymraeg i mi,
Hon ydyw iaith teimladau,
Ac adlais i guriadau
Fy nghalon ydyw hi
--- Mynyddog
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted on 05-Nov-2005, 03:00 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 31-Oct-2005, 02:00 AM)
If you try to "reason" that there is a god, and you do so successfully, then there is no reason to have faith. For if you are already completely convinced that God exists, by means of reasoning him out, then there is nothing for you to have faith in. You need no other motivation for acknowledging him. The point is, he believed that you first reckon God to exist, within yourself and apart from rationalizing, then you are in a better position to rationalize the existence of all other things. I see a lot of wisdom in this perspective.

He According to Leibniz, anything outside this chain is it's own sufficient reason, and that is God. Its not a complicated idea, but one that should be thought about for more than two seconds.


To what degree are you reasoning the existence of God when God is a self generated concept you're trying to justify or not via reasoning? God is a word applied, and reasoning alone is its own limitation when applied to it, as is language - reason's midwife. Like attempting to explain the mechanisms of an automobile engine to someone while only using the word "peach", you can't transcend your methodology. Hence the need for faith.

Another alternative is experience. Yet to embrace that, the whole idea of "finding/proving God" has to be released since there's no verification possible outside of one's presuppositions of what God is and the degree to which one supposes their experience conforms to them. This may be why Buddha, Lao Tsu and others of the experiencial school didn't use the word or address the concept, its intellectual quicksand. Honesty demands experience be embraced on its own terms when one recognizes the "arbitrarity of titularity" and all the assumptions carried with it in the conceptual backpack. If you were to have an experience of an omnipresent creative force what difference would it make what you called it anyway? How would you make sense of it without encapsulating it within the framework of your assumptions and limit your understanding by so doing? Yet an oak is not what it is because of the word applied to it nor has it changed from the time the Druid worshiped it to the time the modern logger chops it down as a commodity. Yes I know existential uncertainty is difficult for people yet look at nature's supreme functionality with apparant utter certainty.

If function is primary, and the need to believe is vital to function as Stoirmiel says, and is an independent consideration from verifiable truth, then is the question only one of adopting whatever belief facilitates function for the individual? That's a pretty mechanistic and perfunctory ideal for most and life is more than coping mechanisms successfully applied. Doesn't the creativity or dare one say grandeur of man supercede the mechanical nature of his capable function? Beethoven's symphonies are remembered. Few know or care about him being found drunk and passed out in the street, his inability to keep servants to clean his house due to his temper and tendency to throw things at them, or the attempted suicide of his adopted nephew while under his care. Not that I believe in the necessity of suffering for art, but I do wonder what the 9th symphony would have sounded like if Beethoven had been subjected to modern therapy, or the navel-gazing self indulgence of the psychoanalytically preoccupied or the banal teddybear hugging inner child puerility of pop psychology. Yes I know the other argument, institutions are filled with probable Beethovens, who because of the degree of dysfuntionality, fill the world with the grandeur of their drool. Point taken.

Understandably when you have a humanity with such a panoply of perspectives, perhaps functionality can be seen as the only equitable principle applicable, but even that perspective seems mechanistic, like the conclusion a computer would derive. Whose criteria of adequate funtionality apply? One interesting book: "We've had 100 years of psychotherapy and the world is getting worse" by James Hilman. Before I get admonished for irreverance of psychology, I simply think it has its limitations, not that its meaningless or fosters delusions. Then again, how many millennia did humanity "function" before Freud? How has it improved since? A discussion for another board surely wink.gif

Assuming you've read this far, thank you. Back to prophecy. Perhaps we could talk about to what degree human beings successfully prophesize, and leave what those propehcies may signify for the future or the "end times" on the back burner for the moment. Then we may find common ground we could all tread.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Nightchild 
Posted on 07-Nov-2005, 08:53 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Honored Clan Member
****

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 80
Joined: 04-Jul-2005
ZodiacHolly


female





I'd like to contribute something to this topic as well. Yet I have to admid, that I only read the first postings and crossread some of the latter, since I'm running out of time. (Sitting in university and break is running short wink.gif)
I'll just try to point out some of the things that came to my mind before I forget them and try to add more when I come home.


So let's see where to start...
Maybe at first I should point out, that I voted for something other than prophecy or no prophecy, since my belief in 'prophecy' developed over the years and now is kinda consistent. At least I do believe so.
I often discuss about free will as against predetermination and fate. And I think, this runs close to prophecy. I believe there are things that we can decide all by ourselves, yet there are other things, bigger things, that will happen, no matter what we do. The only question is: Do we help those things to happen or do we try to prevent them. (I guess, this is similar to what Diana Gabaldon puts into her Highlander Series, yet I read the books after I already had that belief.)
I believe things like world wars had to happen. Yet I don't believe, that the people involved had to be there. Maybe if Hitler had died before 1933 there still had been the following events resulting in World War II but at another time with different people. I hope, this point got kinda clear, I'm still struggeling with expressing my thoughts in English. wink.gif

Maybe now I'd just comment on the natural desasters...
Indeed there seem to be more earthquakes. But as someone already pointed out (sorry, don't remember who did it) can anyone be sure whether this augmentation depends on more earthquakes or better methods to measure them? Can anyone know how many actual recordings of earthquakes disappeared in natural desasters like, say earthquakes themselves?
Now just for once say they DO happen more frequently. Can anyone know whether there was a time before when this happened? Can anyone know if earth runs in circles or better say spirals, that include times of more frequent earthquakes followed by times of less frequent earthquakes?
I myself believe for other desasters like hurricans that those are human made. Maybe I'm taking ourselves too important. That might be, of course. Anyway, we just have to accept that we interfere with nature and that nature consists of complex circles of life that we automatical interfere when interfering with nature. This means we could have changed something without even noticing it, because we just don't know of any connection by now and with that change made all those wheater desasters happen.
We are part of a world and we are influenced by it (as we see when nature 'strikes back') as well as we influence it.

Now just throw a quick glance to wars and similar things.
Someone stated, that those might be a way of regulation when people become to many. I'd pretty much go with that. Yet I think there's something else to take into account.
Our medical care is much better than centuries ago. Back then there were epedemies, there were wars... when thinking about it (with my little knowledge of history that is) I guess they had all the same we have now. Just with one big difference. WE CAN CURE today what THEY HAD but couldn't cure. This fact doesn't mean that we are closer to the end of the world. It only means that our technics and our medical understanding and knowledge improved as did the 'tactics' of viruses, bacteria and so on.
And yes, they had wars, we have wars. I'd say they had more personal wars than we today have, since being a soldier then meant killing peole you were looking in the eye. Noadays you tend to press buttons. Anyway, you might say today much more people die in wars than did back then. And I say that's only logical since today there are much more people living, which means much more people are affected by wars. And at another point of view: Today most people die of actual fighting while back then many died because of hunger caused by wars.

Anyway, I gotto stop here. I'll think about it some more and get back to it soon. wink.gif


--------------------
user posted image
PMEmail Poster                
Top
Nightchild 
Posted on 07-Nov-2005, 02:35 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Honored Clan Member
****

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 80
Joined: 04-Jul-2005
ZodiacHolly


female





Okay, I'm home now, so there's plenty time to go on with my thoughts, that hopefully someone will understand. rolleyes.gif

I forgot one thought about natural disasters when I was posting earlier that I still want to mention:
When talking about the augmentation of disasters I think one has to take into account that the population of our earth increased. Meaning that back in history people usually didn't live in spaces endangered by avalanches, they usually didn't live in spaces they knew were endangered by regular unpredictable flooding. They learned to know those places and they settled somewhere else. This means: Maybe there were occurences like the ones we experience today but the people then knew those things happened and lived with it. And lived with it in a way that didn't put them in the exacte space those things happened in. So there was not the need to write them down or something. This might also be a reason for those increasing numbers of natural disasters.

QUOTE
1) man's knowledge would increase {interpreted by many to indicate our advanced technology}, 2) that man would be running to and fro {meaning the speed and efficiency of travel}, and 3){this is a favorite of mine}, that the earth would wobble on its axis like a drunkard.

I don't know much about the bible, I have to admit. Yet I'd like to present my thoughts on this passage.
As for 1, there's nothing uncommon about increasing knowledge, I think. You can observe this when watching a child grow up. The child will learn things and its knowledge will increase. So does mankind. 'We' grow older and learn things. So our knowledge increases. It's like a species growing up. Yet I myself wouldn't want to interpret this as advanced technology. Aren't there more important things to know than those technology brought us?
And as for 3, I'd not say the wobble of the earth means something already happened. No, that's wrong. It's not something that happened during the last few years or even centuries.
We all know there's a north pole and a south pole creating the magnetic field that's protecting us from all radiation that's coiming from the deep realms of the universe. Someone told me (and I think it's already something scientists are discussing, yet I'm not sure about this) that there were times when the north pole was the magnetic south pole and vice versa. So the orientation of the magnetic field changed as it will do again and as it did before. This of course causes a wobble of the earth. No doubt.
Just to think about. wink.gif

QUOTE
[...] let me say the in my understanding of "the earth being destroyed by fire", that it may not be a literal destruction of the physical mass of the planet. The bible does go on to say that there would be a "new earth." So interpretation again seems to be of critical importance here.

I'd like to point out, that there are many people believing in advanced cultures that lived on earth before us and that were swept away from it before the beginning of 'our' culture. (And count me to them!)
Some months ago I watched a documentation in TV mentioning for example the fact that somewhere in South America the people has statues of 'gods' that were definitely white men. And those were made at a time no one ever prooved contact between europe and south america in. Another thing was the fact that there are sea maps showing the coast line of Antarctis. The exact coast line as we know it today with the help of our advanced technology. They said it is believed that those sea maps where copied in medieval times. The originals are believed to originate in times of a previous culture that lived there until Antarctis made its way into the polar region.
So I'd go with the interpretation that the end of the world doesn't mean the end of our planet but the end of our society as it is and a new beginning of a new culture.

Anyway, this concept of former advanced cultures may explain knowledge you can find in legends, myths, fairy tales but also in the bible. Also it took us long to find it, there were people before us who KNEW. And those people put the facts to stories that we still have, still read and finally learn to understand again.
On the other hand this just means the facts, not the words used, for if we truly wanted to discuss the words of the bible (not its meanings) we al had to read the original texts written by those who actually wrote them down for translations always hold the danger of mistranslation.
As for me, I remember asking our priest(?) why the 10 commandments start with "Du sollst nicht" (see, I'm german. I guess it would be translated with 'you may not') and he told me it was kind of a translation error and the version of the bible it was translated from said something like "Du wirst nicht", which would be "you will not".
Some years ago when we had an exchange student from Atlanta I had the chance to read some pages of an american bible. So I know that there are completely different versions of 'the' bible.
How can we discus the words written when we don't know the original words(and I strongly believe the original words are not greek, are they hebrew?)? Seriously, I don't know. Anyone any idea?

As for the bible quotes by SCShamrock...
You say you'd translate the greek version by birth pangs rather than sorrows... But doesn't brith means a beginning? Birth is no end, birth is the beginning of something new. Of course, beginning also means that something has to end, to die, to make place for the new thing. But the stress(?) is on the beginning, not on the end. I'd say we should be happy about the beginning instead of being afraid of the end.
Anyway, that doesn't affact the pure fact that it indeed seems to be coming true.

Gosh, I'm running out of time AGAIN!
Let me just close for now with what I wanted to say all along:

As for prophecies (that may also be written in the bible as well as in legends, myths and fairy tails!) I believe in them, yet I don't believe they are real prophecies.
To me, those are things that happened before and someone managed to put them down in a form that had them be unlost until now.
This goes close with my believe of time being spiral instead of linear. We run in spirals. We learn in spirals. Did you ever learn some new facts about something you already knew? Well, then you were learning in spirals! Time moves in spirals, since there are events that happen again and again in history. The rise and the fall of empires. It happens, as it happened before and will happen in future. Natural disasters happen now as they did before and will in future.
That's nothing unusual. This is how life works and this is how nature works.
There are legends that tell about astronimical facts that we today can prove again. With the help of our advanced technology. But how could people back then knew? Somehow they did, although they never may have witnessed those things.
You can say god told them. I think it's up to everyone to decide about the how.
As for me, I believe there were advanced cultures before us and they calculated those things as we can do today, probably even better than we can today. And they put those facts into legends, myths and fairy tails so it wouldn't be lost when they were gone.

Any comments? angel_not.gif
PMEmail Poster                
Top
reddrake79 
Posted on 25-Nov-2005, 04:15 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Braveheart Member
******

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 132
Joined: 10-Mar-2004
ZodiacRowan

Realm: oregon

male





Pointed comment.

NO ONE has shown the specific prophecies of the Bible to be untrue here. There is a lot of talk about some of the vaguer (is that a word) and more obvious ones (wars and rumor of wars etc.) But what about the ones that are specific. (someone, don't remember who, said that one problem is they are unverifiable (I hope i have not missunderstood) ) I think that is not true. The Bible books have been reliable dated by archeologists and historians. Those prophecies had to be written down years even centuries before they occured, yet the very thing happened. We can look at historical documents that do not rely on the bible to prove it. Joseph interpreting pharoh's dream in Genesis and saving an entire nation from starving 7 years later after 7 years of exceptional harvests. The prophecies of Daniel and other "prophets" that said things would happen in the future. Like, the imprisonment of Isreal and how long it would last. The fullfillmet of the messianic prophecies that were made centuries before Jesus Christ showed up. To list all the prophecies the Bible makes that have been fullfilled would take to much space here. NO ONE (unless I missed a post somewhere) has said, Oh those arent true and here is why. And NO ONE has considered them when talking about other aspects of prophecy. Am I to assume that everyone's silence on the topic means they believe fulfilled prophecy to be irrelevant?

someone open up the idea of free will and determination. That's not what we are talking about here. All the biblical prophecies take into account the free will and nature of man. Many of the prophecies cannot even be affected by men.

Nightchild, I think you give humans to much credit for how we affect our world. Sure we can affect it horribly on a very localized level, But it is not through the actions of humans that there are earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis (unless there is an evil Bond villian using explosives somewhere) Humans ( as many of us as there are) are simply incapable of indirectly affecting our global environment that much. However that is a discussion for another thread. Think of how quickly nature takes over a vacant lot or vacated house, all the lost ruins in central and south america and africa.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted on 30-Nov-2005, 12:20 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





I think since you're making the claim of truth, the burden of proof would lie with you, yes? ;-) Yet before you spend the time, if the bottom line will come down to a question of faith then "proof" is no longer a pertinent question is it?

If conclusions are built on a foundation of faith based assumptions then what more can really be said, except from those who share your faith and would agree with you? But your post leads me to believe you were wanting a reponse from the dissenters.....perhaps this is why the thread has been quiet.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
reddrake79 
Posted on 14-Dec-2005, 10:37 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Braveheart Member
******

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 132
Joined: 10-Mar-2004
ZodiacRowan

Realm: oregon

male





First of all, regradless of my faith I have to consider any prophecy that has come true. The prophecy still came true no matter what I believe. After all if the prophet accurately and specifically predicts something before hand then maybe there is something to the other things he is saying.

Secondly, burden of proof hmmm? ok. smile.gif

Isaiah 39:6; Jeremiah 13:19; Jeremiah 20:4; Jeremiah 25:2-11; Jeremiah 32:28 all talk about the capture of the isrealites by babylon. Jeremiah predicted it during the reign of Josiah. It didn't happen till the reign of Zedekiah many years later.

All the old testament prophecies about the messiah coming true hundreds of years later in Jesus.

http://www.biblegateway.com/topical/topica...urce=1&tid=3974

The amount of prophecies are too numerous to list here. This url should get you to the site I was using to find the references of the above prophecies.

The dream I was talking about earlier can be found in Daniel chapter 2. Daniel then gives a description (no names) of 4 kingdoms that will come after babylon
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Raven 
Posted on 14-Dec-2005, 04:56 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,994
Joined: 23-Oct-2003
ZodiacHolly

Realm: Indianapolis, IN

male





As I stated earlier in this thread, the statue of the vision of Nebucanezor Daniel Chapter 2 is so convincing that dissenters said it had to be written after the fact until the discovery of the quamran tablets (aka dead sea scrolls)

peace

Mikel


--------------------
He is no fool who gives up that which he can not keep to gain that which he cannot loose

www.arminta.net
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               View My Space Profile.
Top
Druid_of_Ark 
Posted on 11-Dec-2007, 11:01 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Chieftain of the Clan Cathcart-USA
Group Icon

Group: Order of the Knights
Posts: 4,841
Joined: 07-Dec-2007
ZodiacAlder

Realm: Perryville, Arkansas

male





Yes many are but then I am not confining my answer to the prophesies of the Bible, I do not think Jesus i going to return...but sure wish he would and set his "followers" straight! Someone needs to!


--------------------
Blessed Be,
Sir. Raibeart Paris, OGU
PMEmail Poster               
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 








Celtic RadioTM broadcasts through Live365.com and StreamLicensing.com which are officially licensed under SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN.
2014 Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance, Ye O' Celtic Pub and Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics 2014, Cari Buziak


Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.


[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medival Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt