Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Prophecy regarding Russia

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Well, first we must assume the accounts to be accurate (I've already mentioned thst eyewitness testimony can be unreliable). Next we must consider some possibilities - optical illusions, etc. If we have exhausted all possibilities without coming close to an answer we must sit back and say, I don't knoe whst happened, clearly we don't have enough information. Which is exactly what I do. I fail to what justifies bringing the supernstural into it.

    Do you consider the supernstural in every event that you do not understand?

    No do you ? Yet earlier you claimed it must have been caused by the weather. Unless you're assuming the accounts to be inaccurate, and that De Almeida and Garret ascribed every single event they did not understand in life as supernatural.


  • Options
    #93
    PeteHeat
    Registered Users Posts: 648 ✭✭✭PeteHeat


    Safehands wrote: »
    I'm not calling prayer silly. I'm say that the vision of Mary going up to God with a list of petitions from people is plain silly. Do you actually think that this happens?

    Maybe it happens that way maybe it doesn't, I used a very simple example to describe a possible scenario.

    Blessed Mother asks us to pray, it appears to me that she would like as many as possible to join in that prayer so there must be a reason for both the prayers and the numbers who offer them up.

    Appears that Russia is the country that is most in need of Divine help, so by including Russia in our prayers are we actually praying for and protecting ourselves?

    I don't recall seeing anywhere that the prophecies are set in stone, the only message from God set in stone was the ten commandments, perhaps from this we can take it that all prophecies do not necessarily come to pass?

    Perhaps the power of prayer is such that it can change what was predicted?

    I am a simple man who instead of analysing everything and trying to decipher prophecies that were made thousands of years ago some of which must have been lost in translation or the methods used to pass them on (written or verbal) I prefer to look to the teachings of Jesus as I understand them.

    We can look up many phrases from the bible using Google and become even more confused because there are many versions of the bible edited or adapted in some cases to fit a religion, others are what some interpreted them to mean.

    Many if not most people pray for themselves, maybe we are being guided to pray for Russia and by default we will benefit?

    Do we have to question everything to the point where we leave faith aside?

    A bit like asking someone to prove a point by providing a link to a web site except in matters of faith there is no all defining link that explains everything?

    Enjoy life, keep it simple.

    "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"


  • Options
    #94
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    mezuzaj wrote: »
    Fatima is undoubtedly the most prophetic of modern apparitions. Infact its hard to ignore the concrete message given about Russia. Lucia in 1929 wrote to the Pope about Russia, However at the time Fatima had not been given full approval.

    So let's have a look..
    But as regards Russia the message was pretty clear. "[Russia] will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. " We look a communism which destroyed thousands of Churchs in Russia. Look what communism did to China or North Korea. Or for example Pol Pot.

    Leaving aside what constitutes "error" (for I can't help but suppose monumental error in a system which decries anything but ever increasing growth and consumption)

    Look what secularism did to the Church. Wrecked in it's traditional form, whether Protestant of Catholic in nigh on all the Western world.

    A 'prophecy' which is so specific as to be applied almost anywhere in the world is hardly .. prophetic. It's a bit like predicting the outbreak of the worst of all wars (per earlier in the discussion). It's so easy to do (given the nature of the evolution of war) that the specificity of the prophecy need raise itself a gear or two above the quality that is MysticMeg-ism.











    Fatima made a lot of People listen and as Lucia's letters became true it made the Church listen.

    Pope Pius XII was consecrated the date of the First apparition and Pope John Paul II shot on anniversary of Fatima.[/QUOTE]


  • Options
    #95
    indy_man
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭indy_man


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Well, first we must assume the accounts to be accurate (I've already mentioned thst eyewitness testimony can be unreliable). Next we must consider some possibilities - optical illusions, etc. If we have exhausted all possibilities without coming close to an answer we must sit back and say, I don't knoe whst happened, clearly we don't have enough information. Which is exactly what I do. I fail to what justifies bringing the supernstural into it.

    Do you consider the supernstural in every event that you do not understand?

    Do you even believe Christ rose from the dead, yet you blindly without even researching Fatima discount it? Our Lady has been given a special role in helping us fight evil and come closer to her son. She gives us warnings, we don't have to believe them but would be well advised to take heed. There is vast amounts of evidence, scientific, eye witness and other testimony that prove certain apparitions have occurred and are supernatural in nature. That is what this thread is mainly about.


  • Options
    #96
    mezuzaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 176 ✭✭mezuzaj


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Well, first we must assume the accounts to be accurate (I've already mentioned thst eyewitness testimony can be unreliable). Next we must consider some possibilities - optical illusions, etc. If we have exhausted all possibilities without coming close to an answer we must sit back and say, I don't knoe whst happened, clearly we don't have enough information. Which is exactly what I do. I fail to what justifies bringing the supernstural into it.

    Do you consider the supernstural in every event that you do not understand?

    Its not an event we do not understand. That is why we believe.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Gumbi
    Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    indy_man wrote: »
    Do you even believe Christ rose from the dead, yet you blindly without even researching Fatima discount it? Our Lady has been given a special role in helping us fight evil and come closer to her son. She gives us warnings, we don't have to believe them but would be well advised to take heed. There is vast amounts of evidence, scientific, eye witness and other testimony that prove certain apparitions have occurred and are supernatural in nature. That is what this thread is mainly about.

    Lol? Science operates under the assumption on that the supernatural doesn't exist - that it, it is naturalistic.


  • Options
    #98
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Lol? Science operates under the assumption on that the supernatural doesn't exist - that it, it is naturalistic.

    No it doesn't. Science makes no assumptions about anything, and it's a tool for dealing with the physical not the non physical.


  • Options
    #99
    Gumbi
    Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    ryan101 wrote: »
    No it doesn't. Science makes no assumptions about anything, and it's a tool for dealing with the physical not the non physical.
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

    It's basic science to know that it deals only with the realm of nature, and non the supernatural. It makes no claims as to whether the supernatural exists or not, but operates irrrspective of it.


  • Options
    #100
    mezuzaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 176 ✭✭mezuzaj


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Lol? Science operates under the assumption on that the supernatural doesn't exist - that it, it is naturalistic.

    While your post is off topic, science does not operate under any assumption that supernatural does not exist, its not within Science scope, but there is no scientific law ruling it out or in.

    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."


  • Options
    #101
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    Gumbi wrote: »
    http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

    It's basic science to know that it deals only with the realm of nature, and non the supernatural. It makes no claims as to whether the supernatural exists or not, but operates irrrspective of it.

    Correct. Science can only deal with the physical. Whereas you claimed instead that Science made the assumption that the non physical does not exist.
    Gumbi wrote: »
    Lol? Science operates under the assumption on that the supernatural doesn't exist - that it, it is naturalistic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Gumbi
    Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    You're twisting my words. Maybe I wasn't clear. Like I said earlier, science doesn't claim it exists or not, but operates irrespective of it.


  • Options
    #103
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    The words are your own. There is lots of twisting going on, but not as you claim.


  • Options
    #104
    Gumbi
    Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    ryan101 wrote: »
    The words are your own. There is lots of twisting going on, but not as you claim.

    Well I've clarified multiple times what I've said. Science makes no claim as to whether the supernatural exists or not, as it lies outside of the scope of science. Therefore it cannot address it in any way, shape or form.


  • Options
    #105
    mezuzaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 176 ✭✭mezuzaj


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Well I've clarified multiple times what I've said. Science makes no claim as to whether the supernatural exists or not, as it lies outside of the scope of science. Therefore it cannot address it in any way, shape or form.

    Of course science is used to address supernatural, it just can arrive to conclusions, however it can rule out certain things. Take for example a person who claims they are seeing visions..The Church can ask a doctor to evaluate the person, The doctor might conclude the person is mad. Science is very important. Or for example a person has stage 4 cancer and is cured after praying to a saint, the church will ask a doctor to evaluate to records to rule our medical possibilities to the cure, So while the doctor may not be able to explain how the person was cured, he his able to say for certain the person was not cured by other means (Chemo/Operation...ect..) Religion does not rule out science. Both have different areas.


  • Options
    #106
    Gumbi
    Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    mezuzaj wrote: »
    Of course science is used to address supernatural, it just can arrive to conclusions, however it can rule out certain things. Take for example a person who claims they are seeing visions..The Church can ask a doctor to evaluate the person, The doctor might conclude the person is mad. Science is very important. Or for example a person has stage 4 cancer and is cured after praying to a saint, the church will ask a doctor to evaluate to records to rule our medical possibilities to the cure, So while the doctor may not be able to explain how the person was cured, he his able to say for certain the person was not cured by other means (Chemo/Operation...ect..) Religion does not rule out science. Both have different areas.

    Err, no. If someone rules out possible causes, that does not mean a cure was supernatural. That's called an argument from ignorant fallacy. "I don't know what it is, therefore it must be this".


  • Options
    #107
    PeteHeat
    Registered Users Posts: 648 ✭✭✭PeteHeat


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Err, no. If someone rules out possible causes, that does not mean a cure was supernatural. That's called an argument from ignorant fallacy. "I don't know what it is, therefore it must be this".

    I would be inclined to go with the line that it certainly was not this (chemo etc), what other possibilities are there?

    Patient received the same food, water etc as all the other patients, the one thing this patient had that the others didn't was water from a holy well, a relic, prayer to a certain saint etc.

    Therefore using the process of elimination it would be fair to examine what the patient had that was different.

    Of course the same water from a holy well, a relic, prayer to a certain saint etc can not work on everyone in the ward because everyone will not have the same level of faith or devotion.

    Another factor that may have to be looked at is did the patients always have the same beliefs or were they converted in their last days by desperation seeking a cure.

    Good science is always open to correction.


  • Options
    #108
    Gumbi
    Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    ryan101 wrote: »
    Wrong again, I wasn't there, or even alive then, therefore I am making no claim. The contemporary press accounts make the claim, so if you claim it did not occur, or it was impossible, you'll have to prove so.

    The only reasonable claim to make is that there is insufficient evidence to make any sort of claim of a supernatural occurrence at such a time and place.


  • Options
    #109
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    Gumbi wrote: »
    The only reasonable claim to make is that there is insufficient evidence to make any sort of claim of a supernatural occurrence at such a time and place.

    What would be sufficient evidence and why ? Give an example.


  • Options
    #110
    indy_man
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭indy_man


    Fatima Testimony.
    http://amaic2.blogspot.ie/2010/01/testimonies-to-fatimas-miracle-of-sun_13.html

    For anyone with the ability to love here is the First Saturday devotion again. God Bless.

    http://www.rosary-center.org/firstsat.htm


  • Options
    #111
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Mod: It shouldn't be difficult to understand but by way of a final warning: we have one thread on this forum, and one alone, for debating the existence of God. The last thing I want to do is shut down discussion, but otherwise every thread would be reduced to Christians and atheists repeating the same argument over and over again.

    If anyone wants to discuss claims of prophecy relating to Russia or the alleged events at Fatima then this is the thread to do it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    indy_man wrote: »
    Fatima Testimony.
    http://amaic2.blogspot.ie/2010/01/testimonies-to-fatimas-miracle-of-sun_13.html

    I have read about the miracle of the sun at Fatima and I ask a few questions:

    Did the sun spin on that day? No, it absolutely did not. It remained where it was, 150 million kilometres from Earth.

    Did the thousands of people at Fatima see something which appeared to be the sun spinning? It seems most likely that they did.

    So was what they saw was an optical illusion? It absolutely was.

    What caused that illusion? I do not know, I can only speculate.

    Was what happened supernatural? Well, to make several thousand people experience an illusion is certainly strange. We don't really know for sure why it happened, and religious believers have a tendency to describe such events as miracles. So at best it can be described as an amazing illusion. It would have been easier to describe it as a miracle if the whole world had witnessed it, not just a few thousand Catholic believers. However, it was certainly an interesting experience for a lot of people.


  • Options
    #113
    mezuzaj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 176 ✭✭mezuzaj


    Safehands wrote: »
    I have read about the miracle of the sun at Fatima and I ask a few questions:

    Did the sun spin on that day? No, it absolutely did not. It remained where it was, 150 million kilometres from Earth.

    Did the thousands of people at Fatima see something which appeared to be the sun spinning? It seems most likely that they did.

    So was what they saw was an optical illusion? It absolutely was.

    What caused that illusion? I do not know, I can only speculate.

    Was what happened supernatural? Well, to make several thousand people experience an illusion is certainly strange. We don't really know for sure why it happened, and religious believers have a tendency to describe such events as miracles. So at best it can be described as an amazing illusion. It would have been easier to describe it as a miracle if the whole world had witnessed it, not just a few thousand Catholic believers. However, it was certainly an interesting experience for a lot of people.

    You do realise that the Miracle of the sun on the 13 of Oct 1917 is not the bases for Fatima, its the message. However all those present on the day seemed to believe the message based on the events. But the real miracle is how the message given to the Children started to become true.


  • Options
    #114
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    mezuzaj wrote: »
    You do realise that the Miracle of the sun on the 13 of Oct 1917 is not the bases for Fatima, its the message. However all those present on the day seemed to believe the message based on the events. But the real miracle is how the message given to the Children started to become true.

    A miracle is an extraordinary happening. The sun dancing comes close, especially if it can't be explained. Revealing messages about events, after the events started to happen, like the end of WW1 or the start of the second world war, is hardly miraculous. These messages were written down in 1940.


  • Options
    #115
    indy_man
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭indy_man


    Someone earlier mentioned that Fatima doesn't matter anymore, here is a nice recent article on the subject.

    http://www.pattimaguirearmstrong.com/2014/05/fatima-still-matters.html


  • Options
    #116
    ryan101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,671 ✭✭✭ryan101


    indy_man wrote: »
    Someone earlier mentioned that Fatima doesn't matter anymore, here is a nice recent article on the subject.

    http://www.pattimaguirearmstrong.com/2014/05/fatima-still-matters.html

    Fatima does still matter, but you have to separate the timeless (and therefore far more important) messages of Fatima (prayer repentance peace), from the prophecies, and the messages which were specific to the 20th century and which have been fulfilled (as confirmed by Sr. Lucia in the last few years before she died.)


  • Options
    #117
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    ryan101 wrote: »
    Fatima does still matter, but you have to separate the timeless (and therefore far more important) messages of Fatima (prayer repentance peace), from the prophecies, and the messages which were specific to the 20th century and which have been fulfilled (as confirmed by Sr. Lucia in the last few years before she died.)
    The truth is that the church were involved in far more evil than believers care to think about. Fatima is a believer's crutch. It does not really hold up to any real scrutiny. If God wanted to prove his existence, it would be easy for him/her to do. I do not need to repent for sins that were committed before I was born, end of story.


  • Options
    #118
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Safehands wrote: »
    The truth is that the church were involved in far more evil than believers care to think about. Fatima is a believer's crutch. It does not really hold up to any real scrutiny. If God wanted to prove his existence, it would be easy for him/her to do. I do not need to repent for sins that were committed before I was born, end of story.

    Pardon my butting in but the occurrences at Fatima weren't given to provide skeptics with irrefutable evidence; the occurrences were given as a confirmation that something of a supernatural origin happened. The only time in recorded prophecy where the Madonna (allegedly) says a sign specifically for non-believers will be given, is Medugorje, Bosnia.
    The Church has more filth on its hands than we realise and it will pay a very heavy price because of this.


  • Options
    #119
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    the occurrences at Fatima weren't given to provide skeptics with irrefutable evidence; the occurrences were given as a confirmation that something of a supernatural origin happened.

    Confirmation by way of providing an optical illusion? That is not supernatural, sorry.


  • Options
    #120
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Safehands wrote: »
    Confirmation by way of providing an optical illusion? That is not supernatural, sorry.
    Have you read anything about Fatima? People were healed there too and the incident with the rain?
    You cite "optical illusion" but what precedent do you have? Can you verify that an illusion occurred; how it affected +40,000 people and yet others present didn't experience it; and what was the source of this illusion?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Gumbi
    Registered Users Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Have you read anything about Fatima? People were healed there too and the incident with the rain?
    You cite "optical illusion" but what precedent do you have? Can you verify that an illusion occurred; how it affected +40,000 people and yet others present didn't experience it; and what was the source of this illusion?

    I don't think there's enough evidence to determine what happened there at all. And it's been established earlier that a lot of the claims made are actually impossible (with regard to physical laws, local weather conditions etc).

    So, what is more likely, a smattering of reasonable solutions (optical illusions, misreported phenomena etc) or "magic"?


Advertisement