alxfamlaw Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 What does this mean for what she has foretold the Pope. Anyone with some theological experience can you please educate me on this, please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 What does this mean for what she has foretold the Pope. Anyone with some theological experience can you please educate me on this, please?I'm not sure what you are asking.She supposedly told the Pope there was going to be an assasination attempt against him. Check out more of the story here...http://news.inq7.net/breaking/index.php?index=3&story_id=27473 from this site..."The first two [prophecies] were interpreted as predicting the end of World War I and the start of World War II, and the rise and fall of Soviet communism. But the third "secret" was not unveiled until 2000, spawning hundreds of books and Internet sites, which speculated it was a doomsday prophecy foretelling the end of the world. Sister Lucia's unrevealed prophecy even inspired a 1981 hijacking of a flight between Dublin and London by a man who threatened to blow up the aircraft if the Vatican did not immediately reveal it. When it was finally revealed, the Vatican said it foretold the attempted assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II in 1981. The shooting by a Turkish gunman who opened fire on the Pope in St. Peter's Square came on May 13 -- the same day as the first of the reported Fatima visions in 1917." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 I think this can safely be classified as yet another hoax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 I think this can safely be classified as yet another hoax.Why? How can you say that this can be classified as another hoax? Do yu mean that the original three that saw the vision were perpertrating a hoax? Or the people that interpreted their visions were the ones responsible for the hoax? I'm guessing that you mean the original three, right? Because the rest of it seems to be rather factual, don't you think? I mean, did the Pope visit there or not? Is there a shrine? Did 2 of the 3 die of influenza? What part is hoax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 Well - by "hoax" I mean scientifically untestable. Any prophecy of future events will eventually turn out to be correct, if they are vague enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 I should add that there is no evidence available to manifest that the three witnesses saw the same thing. How do we know that two of them weren't told what they had seen by a third? That is what I imply by it not being testable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 14, 2005 Report Share Posted February 14, 2005 untestable but interesting. not sure about this specific issue but this is a phenomenon worth looking into scientifically. i know two people who have had prophetic and very specific dreams (one concerning his father losing a finger and one concerning his house catching fire) and i have observed an uncanny sensitivity in one (finger guy) that has given what i believe is a very non-intellectual mind perceptive insight that comes naturally and without much, if any internal thought. none of this is empirical of course, but personally i would not be suprised to find empirical data supporting psychic and prophetic abilities in the human species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crim Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 untestable but interesting. not sure about this specific issue but this is a phenomenon worth looking into scientifically. If science is unable to provide empirical evidence, then either it doesn't exist, or the means to properly test do not exist. Opinions reign, but that is all. Akin to treacherous waters that only madmen would sail... alone, or with other madmen. i know two people who have had prophetic and very specific dreams (one concerning his father losing a finger and one concerning his house catching fire) and i have observed an uncanny sensitivity in one (finger guy) that has given what i believe is a very non-intellectual mind perceptive insight that comes naturally and without much, if any internal thought. Not clear on what he is sensitive to, or what his perceptions are. Please clarify, as I think I know what you are trying to say, but not sure. An example would be great too. I'm very interested. none of this is empirical of course, but personally i would not be suprised to find empirical data supporting psychic and prophetic abilities in the human speciesI would be very surprised to find empirical data as we know it, supporting those abilities. Just as surprised as say, seeing the resultant single role of a six sided die fully explaining the nature of the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted February 16, 2005 Report Share Posted February 16, 2005 Hmm... this opens up an interesting topic on postdiction. there was a brief mention in another thread which got blocked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 17, 2005 Report Share Posted February 17, 2005 I would be very surprised to find empirical data as we know it, supporting those abilities. Just as surprised as say, seeing the resultant single role of a six sided die fully explaining the nature of the universe. why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crim Posted February 19, 2005 Report Share Posted February 19, 2005 why?LOL, how did I know that was going to be your reply. Sometimes I feel compelled to write a book trying to answer all of the replies I could possibly get, or the unwritten conclusions that some will arrive at, before they happen. So many viewpoints, so little time. Never fear, it is not what you thought. In answer to why: From our viewpoint (loosely), science as we know it is the cutting edge of human endeavours. To us, it is very complex, and represents our best answer to the physical universe. However, looking at it from another viewpoint, such as from all that has not been discovered, our level of science is just a very tiny scratch at the surface. And even then, if there are things beyond the physical universe, well, things start to look a little small where our abilities are concerned. We're a hearty bunch, but reality reigns. I don't think that the current state of science has the ability to properly measure the phenomenon (if it exists), other than to record and compare the resulting symptoms (boy predicts future, gets it right/wrong etc..). If your measuring tool is mainly geared to a physical world, and the phenomenon works on some other principal than the physical laws, then there might be some target missing. This is not to say that science shouldn't put crystal ball Mary out of a job (it should). The bottom line to my comment is that, empirical data in its current form would be unable to properly assess the existence of the phenomenon. Much like how it is not possible to explain the physical universe with a single die role. Wrong tool for the job, or, an incomplete tool for the job. And here you thought I was saying that it was so fantastically impossible for extra abilities to exist :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crim Posted February 20, 2005 Report Share Posted February 20, 2005 adios Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motherengine Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 the thing to understand is that empirical data is not necessarily definitive. empirical simply means something which stems from experiment and observation as opposed to theory. one would only have to show superficial evidence in an experimental condition [one subject formulates a concept internally which is interpreted by another internally] for psychic phenomenon to be validated empirically. science as a method of measuring and discovery is limited to the perceptive abilities of whomever is utilizing it and so of course it has greatly limited potential in human hands than it would say in a gods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.