Tarots history goes back as far as to Egypt and the beginning is obscure and hidden in mysteries. They have been in use for thousands of years and the symbols used on the tarot correspond to the kabala, and other magic once used.

Even the Christian bible talks of gifts of the spirit gave to believers when you mock what you don't understand it makes you look ignorant of the bible and Christian teachings.


I have read the bible and studied it, my suggestion for those intolerant of others beliefs is to be as courteous and show the respect for the followers and users of the tarot and refrain from bashing what you don't care to understand. It is best to include refraining from insulting Christianity and other religions as simple respect and tolerance for all humankind.

I think rationalization should be counted amongst the deadly sins. What do you guys think?

If a person could simply say, Yeah, I know smoking isn't good for me, I just have a hell of a time stopping -- I'd consider that a great strength.

Rationalization to me, is an attempt to search for proof to support your position, in spite of facts that would suggest the opposite.

An alcoholic tells him/herself that they are going out for "just one or two" and they disappear for a week.

An anorexic 80 lb adult looks in the mirror and all they see is fat.

An abusive person tells themselves their behavior raises their status.

Bully's tell themselves they are not important unless they have someone fearing them.

Objectively? Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. It's impossible!!!

ir·ra·tion·al (-rsh-nl)adj.
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment

ra·tion·al (rsh-nl) adj.
1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2. Of sound mind; sane.
3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical:

ra·tion·al·ize (rsh-n-lz)
v. ra·tion·al·ized, ra·tion·al·iz·ing, ra·tion·al·iz·es
v.tr.
1. To make rational.
2. To interpret from a rational standpoint.
3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior):

on edit : these are the definitions which I'm speaking of.

Now I don't fault someone for rationalizing something that is beyond their realm of understanding or awareness. For example, the suggestion made in Message #2 -- that the anorexic looks at her body and says she is fat and this is a rationalization.

on edit: I only meant the question conceptually, as in a part of the seven deadly sins:

The Templars are now of the association of the Nights of Malta to my speculations

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/knightsmalta.htm

Contrary to Fiona Govan's beliefs/research, The Knights Templar went underground and did continue to practice... ever hear of the Freemasons???

The problem is in proving who the real "heirs" are. Do you guys have any idea how many groups claim to be "descended from the Templars" these days?

And no, paul, it isn't Necessarily the case that older translations are less accurate.

Since I don't actually BELIEVE the story, for me the interesting question is to do with the INTENT of the man or men writing it above its literal meaning,

THis depends on the translation you use, but most older English translations don't say that

It would seem that the story may be taken from Buddhist traditions in which the Dali Lama predicts his next reincarnation.

Ah, so when holy books that are held up so often by countless believers encourage things like slavery, inequality of the sexes, genocide, bigotry and other inhumane acts and intolerance, we'll just pretend they have no effect, eh?

When you can actually point to any trolling behavior on my part, do so instead of whining that I'm doing it.

So far the only real problem I'm seeing is you hijacking the thread with your 'you need to be nicer!' whining. Whereas 'nicer' by your definition seems to be 'you have to respect faith' and 'write out your comments in a manner that a two year old could read and understand them'.

It's not my job to explain every little aspect of my posts; that's what reading comprehension is for.

Again, it is not my job to sugar coat my questions, nor do I have to respect any faith unless that faith gives me a valid reason to do so. So far no faith has done anything other than just demand respect, without justifying this request.

My post here is exactly on topic; the OP is asking what's wrong with just believing, and in my above quote I'm saying exactly what's wrong with it. How much more on topic does one need to get?

I am staying on topic; I'm simply not sugar coating my posts, I'm not respecting any faith or religion because they've never earned it, and I don't concern myself with people who suffer reading comprehension problems.

my brother was born premature, 1 pound 16 ounces, and the doctors gave him a 95% chance of living, he is now 14, and has many friends, i do not deem this luck, but a miracle. he was the size of a stuffed doll.

Another miracle is when my grandmother was diagnosed with cancer and wouldn't live more than 2 years, that was when she was in her early 60's, she lived to be almost 80. She was on the verge of death a couple thanksgivings ago, mere months later, by christmas time, she was back to normal, completely.

but he had a 90% chance of surviving it but likely to be unable to to most things , feed himself, pretty much become a vegetable,

So would you call this luck or Miracles?

I call them miracles.

Just because you have never experienced the presence of God is no reason to say that no one else has. How egomaniacal is that!

what?! if you are refering to christians thinking the world is only a few thousand years old...

You cannot live in amidst justice and love with attitudes of murder and adultery, theft and slander...

This forum is an oddball of a forum. Where there are hardly any Christians, and a lot of cynical people, Christian haters, and Neo-pagans. You cannot preach here...

Where did all that come from? How did it get here?

Yes, but you have faith in the scientific process, don't you? You believe that if you formulate a hypothesis, conduct experiments to prove it true and then offer it up for your peers to review and reproduce, that it will explain a phenomena, correct? Belief equals faith, right?

I say there's no proof that God doesn't exist - where's the proof of how we came into existence?

Aside from the obvious problem of faith being a attribute of uneducated fools (a serious problem in itself),

As I've asked on these forums a couple of time now, what makes someone's belief in god a superior belief to that of fairies? So far I've never gotten a response other than "You're being rude/disrespectful!", because people refuse to answer the question.

Do you think women are inferior and should be subservient to men? Well well, prepare to be mercilessly (and rightfully) attacked for that opinion! But wait...it's your religion/faith that decrees such a thing? Uh oh, gotta respect that, right?

Having faith is an optimistic trait - faith in religion, faith in science, faith in yourself, faith that things will work out okay - whatever you believe in - it is a conscious positive act.

the point is why does it require proof that God exists, because it is not likely? so what? whats the big deal?

I don't think it should be any surprise that there are multiple threads on the topic of evil, when it is one of the timeless questions of humankind.

That's saddening, I actualy liked those guys. One cannot disproove creation and creationism & natural selection don't have to contradict eachother

The bible also doesn't say it's the inerrant word of god but a great many people still believe that it is. And if it wasn't satan, then who was it? Santa Claus??

I was wondering how long it was going to take for someone to say that snakes had legs.

And these mysterious serpents.......is this serpent creature now extinct? Like the rest of the 99% of all creatures that have once lived and are now extinct?

I was asked yesterday in another forum topic what I thought about the selling of children in to white slavery aka a dowry for the boy or bride price for the girl.

The subject of these groups of people. They all got someone that they look to, but Without looking to the Lord and To recognize of who He is. The Jehovah's Witnesses and The Mormons both deny that Jesus is God, and If He is got God neither is the Father. They also deny the Holy Spirit is not God neither. They are three, but ONe person. The Catholics believe there is a place that is called Purgatory, and The J.W"S and The Mormons believe there is no hell at all, but The Lord warn us that there is a hell. Somebody is wrong, and It is not the Lord and The word. The coming of Jesus is the fulling of the law of God, and He is the Old and the New Covenant. Jesus real name is Yahshua or Yeshua which is the Hebrew meaning of His name. People don't time to study the word, but They want to swallow everything that come along. The Lord isn't no religion, but People have change His word into a religious book. As for myself the word is the word and It is not a religious book at all. A religious book for a relgious person that is bondage to the doctrine and the traditions of men or To make it simple living a lifestyle to your own pleasing and not to the Lord.

No one said the people in the pit are non-religious and no one even mentioned snakes, much less used it as a representation of the situation. You see what I mean? No one is judging anyone.

Your post above is exactly the type of thing he was talking about. No one is judging you or anyone else; just saying that 'everyone' appears to be so busy 'protecting themselves' against some 'perceived ill', an imaginary attack that never was (yet); an ill that is turned into anger at anyone who simply says, "I care", that the positive message is shot down long before it ever reaches one's heart, much less their ears.

If that is the case, could you please tell me the answer to what came seconds before the universe was created?

Unfortunately that sets legal precedents for other religions. They should just stick with applying the existing laws, and if they break any prosecute them like everybody else. But to outright ban any religious group ... thats going to far. This is not too dissimilar what Hitler did in the 1930s either gradually affronting various unconventional systems of beliefs.

What I think, is that there were those of us who took Satan's side, and life is simply a way for God to sort out who really will follow him and who will still rebel. We all rebel to one degree or another, even good kids party to hard at times, maybe trashes the home. You might get angry at them on your return, but like most good parents give your child a chance to explain themselves. Redeem them selves if you like.

You obviously have no understanding of the Bible.

I believe that the revalation he spole of (the second civil war) was a earlier revalation he was privy to reading about and makes mention of it to his listeners.

do note he did not give a time line. He did tell the audience that if the Lord allowed them to live long enough, they would see his prediction come to pass. He did state it would come to pass in the very near future but AGAIN does not give a time line.

"...and that great and powerful nation, now consisting of some forty millions of people, will be wasted away, unless they repent."

So I am guessing this is a revalation that has not been spoken about since Pratt mentioned it.

I waited over twenty-eight years and saw their fulfilment to the very letter. Should I not, then, expect that the balance of them should be fulfilled?

Now in the below, I have removed all the parts I felt had nothing directly to do with this revalation so it is easier to understand without the extra stuff not applying to it.

You have NEVER once stated what you believed Pratt meant in his description.

to you Pratt was more then a man making a prophecy/prediction (by the way, look up the definitions of both words. They can be used interchangably. Need I tell you that?) he was a Mormon making a prediction/prophecy and that riles you.

But because you are so anti-Mormon a single discussion about a single Mormon who made a single statement has to mean to you we HAVE to be talking about the Mormon religion!

But some people seem to think that because the Protestant Pilgrims were here first they get to claim this land for Jesus.

If religion is displayed in the movies, it's either scandalous (a priest who sodomizes boys, or a Christian training camp for fundamentalist warrior-children to be released into crusades; etc.) or just plain part-of-anyone's lives, even those of the secular (weddings, funerals).

So where is the action about regular, well-accepted, normal Christian life? Hollywood is so very secular. The moral dilemmas, everything, never hinges upon faith, it's always about a conflict that can be described in secular terms.

Why is that?

You did not read my first post apparently Paul."This thread isn't for a discussion on Mormonism 101." You are the first in this entire thread to step on that rule.

Second, the only person who took time to actually consider the prediction and respond to some of my initial questions to get people thinking and to consider today's events happening between the American goverment and the people of America that could possibly lead to the prediction coming true in the future was Trippy. So my questioning the respones of the thinking of posters was not out of line.

You continue to make that statement in various ways but forego explaining yourself and your opinion.

"Do you wish me to describe it? I will do so. It will be a war of neighborhood against neighborhood, city against city, county against county, state against state,..."
For most reading that, it is a series like steps your going up.

The war begins as a rebellion or something of the sort within neighborhoods which are pitted against each other. It then grows to encompass the city and then cities are at odds/war against one another. Then it grows to the counties and finally it is state against state. That is how that is being described. But you continue to say no and that is a wrong description but you fail once more to explain yourself. You just disagree.

What mattered to me was that a man 130 years ago made a prophecy/prediction

Doesn't want to be in a 'religion'

Not a single person so far has been able to think of anything that has been happening in the last 60 years that might be remotely linked to a possible FUTURE out come as Pratt described it.

Most in this thread seem to have a limited amount of thinking capacity that allows them to only attack what Pratt said as vague and meaningless.

I am supposing that the true skeptics here really do not even wish to consider that we in our era in the US could be the possible reason that our present politics could cause future inner turmoil that could possibly bring the US to it's knees.

What I like of this prophecy is that 1. it was a prophecy(no matter how vague of a time period)dealing with America and how Pratt saw it happening over 100 years ago. I know of no other religious or non-religious type person who lived 0ver 100 years ago who took time to make a prophecy/prediction of a future time of America and it's second civil war.

So if a second war did begin at America's borders, that would be contrary to Pratts war prophecy because he stated the next war would begin within cities and spread outwards.

It is called "Gang terf wars." It is a real thing and as America grows in population, so do these gangs regardless of the laws passed to put them in jail.

The media/politicians have already color coded the states remember?

But, to all the true skeptics here, none of the above can be connected in any fashion or way to any parts of a 130 year old prophecy/prediction and what could end up happening in the future due to our present political war that is taking place.

The point you leave out Paul is that Pratt knew what the Civil war was about and how's and who's started it. The point I made was that the way the Civil war began in the US is how most wars within a country begin. They begin from politics, sides are drawn and the war begins. Pratt knew that. But in his own future prophecy of the US he predicted another war would happen but would come from a different direction that it seldoms happens from.

Politicians disagreed, generals and their loyal soldiers went with their favored politicians and the political camps quickly became divided by colors, the grey and the blue.

Is there an actual chance here that because Pratt was a Mormon that certain people in this thread are not willing to give this prophecy (definition as follows so this is a prophecy....1 a prediction.) any credit?

Note the war he describes begins from the opposite direction then the Civil war began. Also note he could not of been thinking of Mormons leading this rebellion that he said would become a war because few Mormons lived in the existing US states at that time. Most Mormons lived in the Utah Territory. So obviously he was describing an insurection leading to a war that would mostly include people who were not Mormons.

If you read what Pratt said, you can find his prophecy fulfilled in many other nations who have been at war within themselves, one goverment toppling another. This prophecy is literally true for a few states in Africa today though he meant it for America.

The clue word he used was "mobocracy."

I also just recently met a Druid who's religeon dates back to the sumerian culture.

Sure it has. The state religion of the French Revolution under the Reign of Terror, called the "Cult of Reason", had to change forms several times, although of course even that was eventually scrapped in favor of the "Cult of the Supreme Being" later on.


Atheism isn't always the underdog. In some places in the world, it's actually quite established.