Please validate your belief in your God

[caveat_imperator]

It's obvious from the previous posts that God is talking to ParkingPlaces and not to Wayne.

[jaimehlers]

All I can give you is what I have been given, and only in the way it's been given me.

Telling us the way that you've interpreted various events to have meaning isn't convincing.

Let me tell you what happened last Monday.  

I go to the park three to five days a week to exercise.  Since it has been cold (37 degrees) I don't arrive there until 5am and spend about an hour and  a half but when it's warmer I'll probably start at 4am.

Monday morning I woke an hour early and thought I might get the week started with  the early schedule regardless of the cold so I got to the park at 4:12AM.

The exercise course is three miles long inside a mile square park and I typically see ten or twenty people along the way, but because I was early all I saw were two coyotes one man and just as I was finishing  a man and a lady that I have never seen there ran into the park and when they got close I realised I knew who they were, but they don't live in California.  They were as surprised to see me as I was them.  I remarked that I uncharacteristically came early or I wouldn't have seen them.  They told me they were just here for three days to go to Disneyland and sea world with family.  They used to live here.

Coincidences happen, Wayne.  Even ones like this, which don't seem likely to our pattern-seeking brains.

The man's name is Dave Orgil.  He was the mission leader when I was baptized that October 17 in 1987, two weeks after the Cold Eggs at Paul's episode.

Dave is the one who invited me to his home (when he lived in Calif) the week before my baptism, and one of the first people to hear my October 1 earthquake episode, if not thwe first. It was under his direct care and council that I was baptised, and the one that, after hearing my story, walked me into his own livingroom to show me the art piece that depicts, like my vision, Christ's return.

You are talking about your earthquake vision, right?  Funny how you've never so much as mentioned that it involved Jesus Christ returning until now.  Maybe because he didn't actually return when the vision was 'fulfilled'?

The vision was of a great disruption with anguish and joy mixed.  My short version of the vision published for you here doesn't mention how the morning sun was pouring through a glass door and gave me the impression that Christ had returned and all I had to do was walk outside and meet him.

Yet this clearly did not actually happen during the earthquake two days later.  In fact, I doubt that you actually had that impression when you first had the vision.  Our memories are not static, Wayne.  They change when we think about them, and if we have new thoughts about the memory, they become part of it as if they always were.  This is a good example of how you changed your memory of the vision based on something that happened later on.

I thought that I'd be following an early 4AM schedule from now on but Monday was the only day I made it.  I have gone every day since but at 5AM not 4.  I just can't get up early enough and as I look back I know exactly why. 
I only had one early appointment at the park this week.

Monday is the only day you made it because your body is used to waking up at 5am.  People do sometimes wake up much earlier than they need to and then decide to stay up because they don't feel tired.  I've done it myself a number of times.  It was pure coincidence that you ran into your friend that day, but you're used to interpreting such coincidences as having meaning.  Indeed, many people do.  But your belief doesn't make that interpretation valid.

Let me put this another way.  Regardless of anything else, this event happened.  You explain it as your god at work, I explain it as coincidence.  Your explanation is thus more complicated than mine and requires additional assumptions in order to hold together.  Occam's razor demonstrates that the explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the most likely to be true.  What you have to show now is evidence that your god actually exists.  Evidence, Wayne, not additional episodes that can also be explained by coincidence.  Until you can provide us that evidence, the simplest explanation is that your episodes are coincidental.

I'd also appreciate a response to my most recent post, two days ago.  I've linked it for your convenience.

[WayneHarropson]

Wayne

You don't seem to clear on our interpretation of your experiences. You see coincidences that could only be caused by your god. We see only coincidences.

We've all had them. Its just that most of us don't give them any special consideration.

I probably wouldn't have brought up the one about Dave Orgil had he not been likely the first person I'd told the earthquake vision to in '87, and who had directed me to the art that lends context to it, and who facilitated my Oct.17 baptism, which later was accented by an earthquake on the same day of the year.

It's not like the subject matter was just out of the blue for this forum.  It was actually more like a supplement to current events.  I just looked and my post of three earthquakes was on the prior Monday to having run into Dave. It seemed appropriate for those reading here to know that my walks in the park are not just about asteroids.

[WayneHarropson]

There is a prophecy currently pending within one of the stories on my premonitions link page.  I'll let you know if it comes true,  If it doesn't, you won't hear a peep.

Please be specific.  What is the prophecy you are referring to?

Sorry.  I'm going to stay coy here.  I have my reputation to protect. 

I have been wrong about so many things and it has just been my luck not to have broadcast them it like so many failed prognosticators have.  It keeps me humble, and believe me, I've got a lot to be humble about.

I told you you wouldn't hear a peep.

[WayneHarropson]

Wayne, you are not a prophet. You do not have premonitions. You are an ordinary average human being just like everyone on this forum.

I'll have to agree that I'm ordinary except that I've been enjoying episodes that others don't have, and the best explanation for that is that I belive in the God that says: "In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths". 

Like the way he directed me to the appointment with Dave.  Otherwise I'm ordinary, for sure.

[WayneHarropson]

How many other earthquakes happened between 10/1/1987 and 2/28/1990 that you aren't mentioning?

That's a good question.  In the context of California I think it would be accurate to say that those three stood together as a group of three major quakes.  There are many many minor quakes that get little notice.


 

This is why we keep referring to confirmation bias - you're only mentioning the ones that seem to have significance to you, and disregarding all the other ones that don't have any significance.  And furthermore, you're only paying attention to how those earthquakes impacted your life, rather than looking at how they affected other people.

I'm a reporter of those incidents as they apply to me, yes, guilty as charged.

This is about like someone who survived 9/11 claiming that God intervened to protect him, while ignoring the thousands of people who died that day.  In your case, you're claiming that God sent those earthquakes as messages to you, specifically (and thus that you're important enough to rate God's personal attention), while ignoring the death and destruction that those earthquakes caused other people.  You, Wayne Harropson, were somehow important enough that earthquakes just so happened to coincide with personal events in your life, so what does that make all the people who were directly harmed or killed by those earthquakes?  And what does that say about something (hypothetically speaking) that was willing to do that much harm simply to send messages to you?

I'll not flatter myself and say the earthquakes were caused for me, but what I can say is God positioned me for them, which He has the privilege and power to do.  That's how I look at it.

Of all the implications of this sequence probably the most profound is that in both good times and bad times God's presence is with me to comfort me and to demonstrate his omnipotence and omnipresence.

By sending earthquakes to cause billions of dollars of property damage, not to mention injuries and deaths?  You clearly never thought about just how awful things were for all the people who were harmed by those earthquakes, otherwise you'd never have said such an asinine statement to begin with.

I could be the next to suffer or even die in a quake, but my confidence is in my God to attend to my soul in either circumstance as is the case with every Christian who puts his confidence in Him.

Pretty funny don't you think?

Not unless you're the kind of person who is utterly insensitive to the suffering of others.
[/quote]

Here's a quote that I just ran across that reinforces my peculiar sense of humor:

"There is no defense against adverse fortune which is so effectual
as an habitual sense of humor."

Thomas W. Higginson (A Preacher, wouldn't you know it.)

[WayneHarropson]

Dave is the one who invited me to his home (when he lived in Calif) the week before my baptism, and one of the first people to hear my October 1 earthquake episode, if not thwe first. It was under his direct care and council that I was baptised, and the one that, after hearing my story, walked me into his own livingroom to show me the art piece that depicts, like my vision, Christ's return.[/quote]

You are talking about your earthquake vision, right?  Funny how you've never so much as mentioned that it involved Jesus Christ returning until now.  Maybe because he didn't actually return when the vision was 'fulfilled'?

Yet this clearly did not actually happen during the earthquake two days later.  In fact, I doubt that you actually had that impression when you first had the vision.  Our memories are not static, Wayne.  They change when we think about them, and if we have new thoughts about the memory, they become part of it as if they always were.  This is a good example of how you changed your memory of the vision based on something that happened later on.

The small version I have posted here, like a lot of what I have written, was reduced to one page and for impact.  There is more to the story and the little bit more I revealed here was not an after the fact re-interpretation of the incident, it is all a part of it and always was.  Just because it was a vision of Christ's return accented by an earthquake doesn't mean it was a prophecy of its imminence.  It was however, an affirmation that God's judgement is certain and the bibles account is true.  That is all it needs to be and that's what it was.

The vision was of a great disruption with anguish and joy mixed.  My short version of the vision published for you here doesn't mention how the morning sun was pouring through a glass door and gave me the impression that Christ had returned and all I had to do was walk outside and meet him.

I thought that I'd be following an early 4AM schedule from now on but Monday was the only day I made it.  I have gone every day since but at 5AM not 4.  I just can't get up early enough and as I look back I know exactly why. 
I only had one early appointment at the park this week.

Monday is the only day you made it because your body is used to waking up at 5am.  People do sometimes wake up much earlier than they need to and then decide to stay up because they don't feel tired.  I've done it myself a number of times.  It was pure coincidence that you ran into your friend that day, but you're used to interpreting such coincidences as having meaning.  Indeed, many people do.  But your belief doesn't make that interpretation valid.

Your pedestrian explanations are absolutely valid if God didn't exist, but he does exist and he's obviously fulfilling for those that believe in him that guidance that sets their lives apart from the unbelieving.
 

Let me put this another way.  Regardless of anything else, this event happened.  You explain it as your god at work, I explain it as coincidence.  Your explanation is thus more complicated than mine and requires additional assumptions in order to hold together.  Occam's razor demonstrates that the explanation which makes the least number of assumptions is the most likely to be true.  What you have to show now is evidence that your god actually exists.  Evidence, Wayne, not additional episodes that can also be explained by coincidence.  Until you can provide us that evidence, the simplest explanation is that your episodes are coincidental.

I'll have to email Dave and break the news that Occam's razor says that our running into each other has involved way too many assumptions and that he should dismiss God's involvement, because it's way too complicated, particularly for someone that created the universe.

[12 Monkeys]

You are really reaching........God has failed to cure you of your ills......Why?

[12 Monkeys]

Wayne to read it even if there is a reasonable explanation for your very mundane experiences with your God,you would dismiss them ....no?

 Why does God give you such boring and relatively meaningless encounters and visions?

[bertatberts]

I told you you wouldn't hear a peep.

So it never came true. No change there then!

[wheels5894]

I told you you wouldn't hear a peep.

So it never came true. No change there then!

Yes, and there's the problem for those who claim to get premonitions. Its a catch 22 situation.  Declare the premonition after one receives it and risk it being wrong, or only declare it when something that matches it happens and then have others see it only as a combination of selective thinking and coincidence.

The fact is, so far as I see it, that a premonition ought to have such qualities that it actually predicts a particular event even if the person receiving the premonition cannot guess at exactly what the event might be. So, for example, in the cinema story Wayne tells he needs to have recorded something that directly links to the shooting incident he claim is its fulfilment - apart that is from the fact that a Batman film was involved. Without information that predicts the shooting incident, the only way one can connect the two is to look for minor similarities - the same film and police. I wonder how many more incidents across the USA might match the same minor similarities but have yet not been chosen by Wayne.

The problem is that only telling the story after the so-called fulfilment is that we are not allowed to see if it matches other events, especially if it is a long time after the original premonition. Frankly, the only way to get people to accept the involvement of the supernatural is to post the first part - the premonition - before anything else happens. If the detail is precise enough a subsequent event will match enough for it to be the only event that could match. Wayne's premonitions are really more vague than Nostradamus and equally could be applied to many events.

[jaimehlers]

Sorry.  I'm going to stay coy here.  I have my reputation to protect. 

I have been wrong about so many things and it has just been my luck not to have broadcast them it like so many failed prognosticators have.  It keeps me humble, and believe me, I've got a lot to be humble about.

I told you you wouldn't hear a peep.

Actually, by refusing to commit to a prognostication beforehand (because you're concerned for your reputation), you're smashing that reputation beyond repair.  It demonstrates that you're only concerned with how you look to others.  Believe me, being caught out by being wrong in something you predict causes far less problems than showing yourself up like you are, because you end up looking deceptive[1], fearful[2], and prideful[3].

You aren't fooling anyone with this attempt to weasel out of committing.

That's a good question.  In the context of California I think it would be accurate to say that those three stood together as a group of three major quakes.  There are many many minor quakes that get little notice.

Except there were several other fairly major quakes in the same area during that time period which have no meaning to you.  In other words, you're only picking out the ones which seem to have meaning to you and ignoring the others.

I'm a reporter of those incidents as they apply to me, yes, guilty as charged.

Major earthquakes don't just apply to you.  They affected millions of other people, and many of them were harmed by those earthquakes which you claim were your god's attempt to reassure you.  Think about it, Wayne.

I'll not flatter myself and say the earthquakes were caused for me, but what I can say is God positioned me for them, which He has the privilege and power to do.  That's how I look at it.

Believe me, you're not flattering yourself by holding such a belief.  It just makes you look selfish and egotistical.  Which, when combined with your unwillingness to commit to a prediction ahead of time, demolishes your reputation even more than it already has.

I could be the next to suffer or even die in a quake, but my confidence is in my God to attend to my soul in either circumstance as is the case with every Christian who puts his confidence in Him.

And you completely missed the point.  I honestly don't care that you think your god will attend to your 'soul'.  What I care about is the fact that you're perfectly okay with your god potentially harming millions of people merely to send messages to you.  Not a particularly good fellow, is he?

Here's a quote that I just ran across that reinforces my peculiar sense of humor:

You aren't doing yourself any favors by trying to dress up your insensitivity to other people's misfortunes with humor.

The small version I have posted here, like a lot of what I have written, was reduced to one page and for impact.  There is more to the story and the little bit more I revealed here was not an after the fact re-interpretation of the incident, it is all a part of it and always was.  Just because it was a vision of Christ's return accented by an earthquake doesn't mean it was a prophecy of its imminence.  It was however, an affirmation that God's judgement is certain and the bibles account is true.  That is all it needs to be and that's what it was.

Please, Wayne.  Spare me the pious attempt to claim that you're remembering this perfectly, even while you reinterpret these 'visions' to say what you want them to say.  Given how you're actually coming across (as I noted earlier in this post), it just looks like hypocrisy.

Your pedestrian explanations are absolutely valid if God didn't exist, but he does exist and he's obviously fulfilling for those that believe in him that guidance that sets their lives apart from the unbelieving.

At least you're willing to grant the validity of my explanations.  However, you're in a catch-22.  You need to prove your god exists to validate your beliefs to others, but you have no evidence to support your belief (because your god is supposedly hiding it), therefore you can't prove your god exists until he provides that evidence.  Oddly enough, if your god doesn't exist, then there is no catch-22, because you can't provide evidence which doesn't exist and never has.
 

I'll have to email Dave and break the news that Occam's razor says that our running into each other has involved way too many assumptions and that he should dismiss God's involvement, because it's way too complicated, particularly for someone that created the universe.

There truly is none so blind as those who refuse to see.  Especially when refusing to see feeds their ego so much.

1.	you know your predictions are mostly wrong, so you try to hide the ones which are so you can look better to other people
2.	you're putting your fear of the consequences of being wrong first
3.	you're only concerned about your reputation, not with the god you supposedly worship

[Tonus]

Your pedestrian explanations are absolutely valid if God didn't exist, but he does exist and he's obviously fulfilling for those that believe in him that guidance that sets their lives apart from the unbelieving.

This makes me think of kcrady's point that the universe as described by the believer is remarkably similar to that described by the non-believer.  It is a reminder that the concept that 'god only reveals himself to those who are determined to find him' is true, but not necessarily in the way that a believer thinks it is.

[Anfauglir]

There is a prophecy currently pending within one of the stories on my premonitions link page.  I'll let you know if it comes true,  If it doesn't, you won't hear a peep.

Please be specific.  What is the prophecy you are referring to?

Sorry.  I'm going to stay coy here.  I have my reputation to protect. 

I have been wrong about so many things and it has just been my luck not to have broadcast them it like so many failed prognosticators have. 

So your track record of success lies in the fact that you only class as a "prediction" something that later comes true?  Then any one of us has the same 100% success rate.

[WayneHarropson]

You aren't fooling anyone with this attempt to weasel out of committing.

You are so hard on me.  I think what you just excoriated me about makes it appear that you are taking me more seriously than I'm taking myself.  What I have offered you in examples of God's guidance  is true.  I have no need to expound beyond my current knowledge.  What I've said so far proves there is a God beyond a reasonable doubt and i'll not take seriously your accuaations that I'm failing my faith by not committing myself to something I don't know. I have no need to live up to whatever you imagine I should be doing.  I'm just sitting back and reporting.  I'm not controlling any of it, nor am I making that claim. 
Why should I? 
That's rhetorical, don't answer it.

I read the rest of your critique. I didn't detect any real questions, just your food for my thought.
Thanks.

[WayneHarropson]

I told you you wouldn't hear a peep.

So it never came true. No change there then!

Yes, and there's the problem for those who claim to get premonitions. Its a catch 22 situation.  Declare the premonition after one receives it and risk it being wrong, or only declare it when something that matches it happens and then have others see it only as a combination of selective thinking and coincidence.

The fact is, so far as I see it, that a premonition ought to have such qualities that it actually predicts a particular event even if the person receiving the premonition cannot guess at exactly what the event might be. So, for example, in the cinema story Wayne tells he needs to have recorded something that directly links to the shooting incident he claim is its fulfilment - apart that is from the fact that a Batman film was involved. Without information that predicts the shooting incident, the only way one can connect the two is to look for minor similarities - the same film and police. I wonder how many more incidents across the USA might match the same minor similarities but have yet not been chosen by Wayne.

The problem is that only telling the story after the so-called fulfilment is that we are not allowed to see if it matches other events, especially if it is a long time after the original premonition. Frankly, the only way to get people to accept the involvement of the supernatural is to post the first part - the premonition - before anything else happens. If the detail is precise enough a subsequent event will match enough for it to be the only event that could match. Wayne's premonitions are really more vague than Nostradamus and equally could be applied to many events.

There has always been an understanding here, at least I have admitted that the term premonition isn't the best word to describe some of what I've offered.  Nobody has come up with a better term for it so it is still in use. 

Even though my reporting is after the fact they still support the existence of God.

[WayneHarropson]

There is a prophecy currently pending within one of the stories on my premonitions link page.  I'll let you know if it comes true,  If it doesn't, you won't hear a peep.

Please be specific.  What is the prophecy you are referring to?

Sorry.  I'm going to stay coy here.  I have my reputation to protect. 

I have been wrong about so many things and it has just been my luck not to have broadcast them it like so many failed prognosticators have. 

So your track record of success lies in the fact that you only class as a "prediction" something that later comes true?  Then any one of us has the same 100% success rate.

I'm not in a competition.  I'm a reporter. What I report is true and proves God exists.  Now I have  said that Obama is America's Idi Amin.  I stand by that one and there seems to be more fufilling to be done.  Wait and see.

[DumpsterFire]

I have  said that Obama is America's Idi Amin.  I stand by that one and there seems to be more fufilling to be done.  Wait and see.

OK, now we're (hopefully) getting somewhere.

Do you mean Obama presently is equivalent to Amin, and if so, how? Give some examples of things Obama has done that you feel put him on par with Amin.
If you mean Obama will eventually become like Amin, give some examples of what you think he might do to bring that to fruition.

In either case, please be as specific as you can.

[jaimehlers]

You are so hard on me.  I think what you just excoriated me about makes it appear that you are taking me more seriously than I'm taking myself.  What I have offered you in examples of God's guidance  is true.  I have no need to expound beyond my current knowledge.  What I've said so far proves there is a God beyond a reasonable doubt and i'll not take seriously your accuaations that I'm failing my faith by not committing myself to something I don't know. I have no need to live up to whatever you imagine I should be doing.  I'm just sitting back and reporting.  I'm not controlling any of it, nor am I making that claim. 
Why should I? 
That's rhetorical, don't answer it.

What you've said so far only shows what your belief is.  You've consistently failed to give even the slightest shred of real evidence to actually support that belief, let alone prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Anyone can prove something they believe to themselves, regardless of evidence; the litmus test is in whether you can prove it to other people.  And for that, you need evidence, unless you intend to focus your efforts on people who already believe your god exists.

But I think you know that that's ultimately a self-defeating proposition.  To feel like you're accomplishing something, you have to try to convince people who don't already share your beliefs.  The problem is, you picked a group of hard-nosed skeptical atheists who are perfectly content to pick holes in your anecdotal stories and your arguments.

By the way, I need to correct you in one regard.  I wasn't accusing you of failing your faith simply because you weren't willing to commit a prediction in advance, although that is a failing.  In fact, you're failing your faith in a far more critical area - in your certainty that your beliefs are correct.  For example, your belief that your examples of your god's guidance are true, and your belief that you've proven your god's existence (for all that you give lip service to "beyond a reasonable doubt", it's obvious that as far as you're concerned, there is no doubt at all of your god's existence, and there never was to begin with).

That certainty, however, is false.  How can anything you take on faith be a certainty to begin with?  Even scientists who work with things that actually exist know that they can't be completely certain that they're absolutely correct in their understanding of how those things work, even though they can present solid evidence to convince others that they have the right of it.  You can't even do that much, as far as your belief in your god goes, yet you claim that your belief is certain and sure.

It rings false, Wayne, and it will always ring false to anyone who pays attention, because your belief is not based on knowledge, it is based on feelings.  You feel your belief is right, you feel your visions are true, and so on.  When people try to convince you otherwise, you feel they're not correct, no matter how good their arguments are.  You've said as much directly to me - that my explanations were reasonable, but you didn't believe them because you 'knew' your god existed and had done what you 'knew' he had done.  But you don't know, you feel.

But what you need here, at this site, is knowledge and evidence, not feelings and beliefs.  And as long as you persist in trying to answer us with your feelings and your beliefs, you'll continue to fail.

[WayneHarropson]

In fact, you're failing your faith in a far more critical area - in your certainty that your beliefs are correct.  For example, your belief that your examples of your god's guidance are true, and your belief that you've proven your god's existence ...

jaimehlers you portray my beliefs as having only a foundation in feelings when you know that they are based upon God's direct demonstrated interventions in my life.  That is hardly touchy feely stuff.  What you are trying and failing to do is box me in with others whose faith you have managed to dislodge that base their "beliefs" on un-demonstrated faith.  You cannot do that with me though you're doing your best.  But what has happened is you discredit your arguments and diminish the credibility of your reason to continue hounding me about having unsubstantiated faith, when you know all too well that I would be unreasonable to dismiss the continual interventions.  They may fail your standards of courtroom evidence but only if a circumstantial cases were never allowed, but you know that a circumstantial case can be a good case, and in my case it's open and shut.

That certainty, however, is false.  How can anything you take on faith be a certainty to begin with?  Even scientists who work with things that actually exist know that they can't be completely certain that they're absolutely correct in their understanding of how those things work, even though they can present solid evidence to convince others that they have the right of it.  You can't even do that much, as far as your belief in your god goes, yet you claim that your belief is certain and sure.

I am as uncertain as any scientist that I have fully captured the intentions and machinations of God.  I'm absolutely uncertain of my interpretations of God's intentions, but in all that uncertainty of myself is absolutely no uncertainty about God's repetitively demonstrated power in my life. That repetitively demonstrated power does find its counterparts in the Scriptures so my reasoned judgement is that those that wrote the scripture were  experiencing the same repetitive demonstrations that caused them to write of the phenomena that characterizes my experience.  It is both reasoned and rational to arrive at the certainty that God exists, and for me it would be the height of idiocy to arrive at any other conclusion.
 A scientist may doubt his understanding of how the speed of light works but he doesn't doubt for a moment that light exists.  (Unless of course he's blind).

It rings false, Wayne,

To the Blind maybe.

and it will always ring false to anyone who pays attention,

Wrong again.

because your belief is not based on knowledge, it is based on feelings.

Wronggo

 

You feel your belief is right,

It's demonstrated, feelings aren't controlling it here reason is.

you feel your visions are true,

What's so touchy feely about an earthquake for heaven sake?, give up jaimehlers.
 

and so on.  When people try to convince you otherwise, you feel they're not correct, no matter how good their arguments are.

Just because they are well seasoned arguers doesn't lend merit to to their case, OJ's defense attorneys held their own arguments in high regard, and only fools were persuaded by them.

You've said as much directly to me - that my explanations were reasonable,

  Your explanations were worthy of regard even though they fell short of overturning the repetitive pattern they sought to dismember. 

But you didn't believe them because you 'knew' your god existed and had done what you 'knew' he had done.

You got that right.

But you don't know, you feel.

Wrong , yet again.

But what you need here, at this site, is knowledge and evidence, not feelings and beliefs.  And as long as you persist in trying to answer us with your feelings and your beliefs, you'll continue to fail.

And as long as you continue to deny the repetitive demonstrations I submit to you, and continue to call them feelings, you will continue to discredit your own ability to reason. 

[WayneHarropson]

I have  said that Obama is America's Idi Amin.  I stand by that one and there seems to be more fulfilling to be done.  Wait and see.

OK, now we're (hopefully) getting somewhere.

Do you mean Obama presently is equivalent to Amin, and if so, how? Give some examples of things Obama has done that you feel put him on par with Amin.
If you mean Obama will eventually become like Amin, give some examples of what you think he might do to bring that to fruition.

In either case, please be as specific as you can.

Idi Amin appealed to the masses with platitudes of how the spoils of the wonderful Ugandan economy was finally in the hands of the people.  He then proceeded to destroy that economy. Like Obama

Amin commandeered a complicated machine with absolutely no clue how the machine worked, and then just drove it off a Cliff.  Like Obama.

Here's the scary part.  Obama was a lawyer working for Acorn that sued Citibank forcing them to give loans to unqualified homeowners.  That started the process that spread throughout the banking system until the system finally broke in Bush's second term.  Bush's White House warned the fed Thirteen times that the policies were leading to disaster, but was powerless to reverse the trend started by.....Obama and his Acorn thugs in Chicago. 

Now Obama waltzes into the presidency blaming Bush for failed economic policies that he (Obama) initiated starting before Bush's first term.  Now, the guy that crashed the greatest economy on the planet is now the president.

Just wait until the riots start.  As they say, socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money,and that's about where were at.  Don't you think?

Now remember, this is God's metaphor, not mine.  Just think of some of Idi Amin's other quirks, and then you can speculate how those quirks might have their counterparts in an Obama administration.  Think drones, think gun confiscation. 
Just think.

[Anfauglir]

There is a prophecy currently pending within one of the stories on my premonitions link page.  I'll let you know if it comes true,  If it doesn't, you won't hear a peep.

Please be specific.  What is the prophecy you are referring to?

Sorry.  I'm going to stay coy here.  I have my reputation to protect. 

I have been wrong about so many things and it has just been my luck not to have broadcast them it like so many failed prognosticators have. 

So your track record of success lies in the fact that you only class as a "prediction" something that later comes true?  Then any one of us has the same 100% success rate.

I'm not in a competition.  I'm a reporter. What I report is true and proves God exists.

Nope.  If all a person "reports" are the hits that feed a particular viewpoint, then there is no proof offered at all.  Its the favourite trick of sham psychics and con-men, to remain vague and to ensure only their hits are boradcast. 

Take your "stone" story.  You present it that the ONE time you decided to pick up something slightly unusual, it was worthwhile - so you present a 100% success rate.  But the true success rate - if there had been, let's say, a dozen other times when you picked up something slightly unusual and it was NOT proved worthwhile - may be significantly less.

Reporting ONLY the successes is no proof at all - no matter how many of them you report.  For your stories to be "proof", they need to be balanced against all the times when a prediction did NOT come true, the times when a feeling did NOT translate into a "hit".  Unless and until you are prepared to be completely open about your predictions and feelings, there is no need at all to analyse the "hits" you present - however many of them there may be, and however "oooh!" they may be - because without the full story of misses, they mean precisely nothing.

[Astreja]

And as long as you continue to deny the repetitive demonstrations I submit to you, and continue to call them feelings, you will continue to discredit your own ability to reason.

Wayne, your "repetitive demonstrations" simply aren't stringent enough to meet the standard of evidence we look for here.  You've interpreted a group of events as being divine in origin, but we don't have an objective data pool to analyze.  All we have is your post hoc interpretations, and so far the events only seem to be meaningful to you.

To paraphrase what I said earlier in the thread, what does any of this have to do with us?  What do we do with all this stuff?

So even if what you're experiencing is legitimate, factual and divine, from our POV it might as well be "feelings" because we can't test it, duplicate it, falsify it, or utilize it in any practical way.

[shnozzola]

Here's the scary part.  Obama was a lawyer working for Acorn that sued Citibank forcing them to give loans to unqualified homeowners. 

Wow, alot of power early on,  that Obama.  It IS scary that people believe that.  Wayne.  Come on.  Idi Amin?  Although I did read that book, Obama's Ancestors at the Crucifixion, by W.T.F. Jones.

Currently Secretary of State John Kerry is in Egypt claiming to put pressure on the government and military for unity and reform.  What do you think Obama has sent John Kerry to Egypt for really?

[jaimehlers]

jaimehlers you portray my beliefs as having only a foundation in feelings when you know that they are based upon God's direct demonstrated interventions in my life.

I know no such thing.  The reason is because you have consistently refused/been unable to provide any solid evidence to back up your stories.  You believe them to be true because they feel true to you, but that is not even close to the same thing to being able to demonstrate them to be true.  This goes back to your mistake of certitude when there's nothing solid to base it on - you might as well build a house on sand.

That is hardly touchy feely stuff.

On the contrary, it's exactly like the following quote:  "Search your feelings, you know it to be true."

What you are trying and failing to do is box me in with others whose faith you have managed to dislodge that base their "beliefs" on un-demonstrated faith.  You cannot do that with me though you're doing your best.

I'm not trying to 'dislodge' anyone's faith.  This isn't about 'dislodging' faith in the first place.  I couldn't care less that you believe in your god.  It's about getting people off of the idea that their faith can substitute for actual knowledge.

But what has happened is you discredit your arguments and diminish the credibility of your reason to continue hounding me about having unsubstantiated faith, when you know all too well that I would be unreasonable to dismiss the continual interventions.  They may fail your standards of courtroom evidence but only if a circumstantial cases were never allowed, but you know that a circumstantial case can be a good case, and in my case it's open and shut.

This is not a courtroom, Wayne (thankfully).  It isn't about technicalities, or objections, or any of the other things you see in courtrooms.  What it's about is providing us with evidence to support your argument.  And you've not been able to do that.  What you're actually giving us are stories which you believe are so compelling that a person who hears them all cannot help but agree with you that your god exists (which, incidentally, is why you've declaring that I know your stories are true, etc).  But they aren't compelling, especially to someone who doesn't share your belief system to begin with.  Your certitude that you know the truth is blinding you to the way things are actually working out.  That's why it's such a serious flaw for you.

I am as uncertain as any scientist that I have fully captured the intentions and machinations of God.

That isn't what scientific uncertainty is about.  Scientific uncertainty is about not biasing the results of an experiment to match predictions.  Yeah, they may have done the experiment a hundred or a thousand times before, but they still perform it as carefully as they did the first time (at least, if they're competent), because they might discover something new with it.  If they started biasing their experiments, like, oh, not keeping records of failures and only recording successes, then they'd defeat the point of doing the experiments, because they'd only be getting the results they wanted.  That's exactly like what you're doing with your visions - you're only recording the ones that seem to have meaning to you.

I'm absolutely uncertain of my interpretations of God's intentions, but in all that uncertainty of myself is absolutely no uncertainty about God's repetitively demonstrated power in my life. That repetitively demonstrated power does find its counterparts in the Scriptures so my reasoned judgement is that those that wrote the scripture were  experiencing the same repetitive demonstrations that caused them to write of the phenomena that characterizes my experience.  It is both reasoned and rational to arrive at the certainty that God exists, and for me it would be the height of idiocy to arrive at any other conclusion.

You having "no uncertainty about God's repetitively demonstrated power" is exactly the problem.  For all that you actually know, for all that you've actually been able to prove, it could simply be coincidence (you've admitted as much by saying that my explanations are plausible).  Therefore, your certitude is built on a foundation of sand.  It may seem solid to you, in your own mind, but it doesn't stand up to examination.  Yet your certitude is actually leading you to ignore the warnings of others who are able to see the problems that you've blinded yourself to.  It is leading you astray.

A scientist may doubt his understanding of how the speed of light works but he doesn't doubt for a moment that light exists.  (Unless of course he's blind).

A scientist has ample evidence that light exists.  He doesn't have to take it on faith, or try to interpret things that have nothing at all to do with light in order to 'prove' it exists.  He can share that evidence with others, in ways they can actually measure and test, and doesn't have to claim that light is hiding itself from a-light-ists to try to avoid explaining why there's no evidence he can give them.

To the Blind maybe.

Blindness takes more than one form.  Convincing yourself that what you want to believe in exists and then refusing to even consider the slightest possibility that it doesn't actually exist is also blindness.

Wrong again.

Wronggo

Then prove it.  Provide evidence that actually demonstrates your god's existence, that we can test and examine for ourselves.  What you're actually asking us to do is to take your word for it, and that isn't going to work.

It's demonstrated, feelings aren't controlling it here reason is.

You do know what rationalization is, right?  It's when a person comes up with reasons to support something that isn't based on reason.  That's what you're doing here, you're rationalizing your belief that your god exists with reasons that make sense to you (but, incidentally, don't make sense to people who don't already believe as you do).

What's so touchy feely about an earthquake for heaven sake?, give up jaimehlers.

Earthquakes happen all the time, as you said yourself.  For that matter, major earthquakes happen frequently in places like California, where you live.  You've claimed three, that happened to coincide with events in your own life, were caused by your god in part to comfort you (a feeling, how about that).  What about all the other earthquakes that have happened through your life?  You haven't claimed any of them as being caused by your god.  Are we supposed to just accept that these three earthquakes are special, while all the other earthquakes that happened before, during, and after that period of time were natural?  Simply because you say they're special?

Just because they are well seasoned arguers doesn't lend merit to to their case, OJ's defense attorneys held their own arguments in high regard, and only fools were persuaded by them.

You hold your own arguments in high regard, yet how many people have you actually managed to persuade with them?  And how many of those didn't already share your religious belief?

Your explanations were worthy of regard even though they fell short of overturning the repetitive pattern they sought to dismember.

That 'pattern' only exists in your own mind and those you've successfully managed to convince, you know.  To everyone else, it's meaningless.  And as long as you refuse to provide verifiable evidence, you're not going to succeed in proving that this pattern you've detected has any real meaning.

Wrong , yet again.

Then prove it, as I stated above.

And as long as you continue to deny the repetitive demonstrations I submit to you, and continue to call them feelings, you will continue to discredit your own ability to reason.

I don't 'deny' anything.  I'm waiting for you to provide verifiable evidence that people can test, instead of anecdotes that you've interpreted to order.  The burden of proof is on you, and you've abjectly failed to meet it.  The more you try to pass the buck and pretend that you've done a great job of being convincing, the deeper you dig the hole you're in.

[jaimehlers]

Here's the scary part.  Obama was a lawyer working for Acorn that sued Citibank forcing them to give loans to unqualified homeowners.  That started the process that spread throughout the banking system until the system finally broke in Bush's second term.  Bush's White House warned the fed Thirteen times that the policies were leading to disaster, but was powerless to reverse the trend started by.....Obama and his Acorn thugs in Chicago.

You seriously believe this?  This is almost as bad as a man who frequently writes letters to the editor expounding on his belief that Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and thus isn't eligible to be president.  His latest letter argued that the government was replaced by a corporation back in 1871, that the 'corporation' is why nobody in the government will do anything about birther charges against Obama, oh, and it's why JFK got assassinated (because he was going to take a stand against the 'corporation').  This "Idi Amin" story of yours strikes me as being like that, as does your insistence in believing it despite your inability to prove it and spinning anything and everything you can to support it.

You got this belief out of a dream or something, right?  Well, it's no more believable than any of the other things that you've claimed were your god's messages to you.

[Tonus]

Nope.  If all a person "reports" are the hits that feed a particular viewpoint, then there is no proof offered at all.  Its the favourite trick of sham psychics and con-men, to remain vague and to ensure only their hits are boradcast.

That reminds me of former ballplayer (and current federal prison inmate) Lenny Dykstra.  For a time, he wrote a column for Jim "Mad Dog" Cramer where he made stock recommendations.  He boasted of "a 100% record in picking winners."  The way he did this should be obvious to anyone following Wayne's recent posts.  Lenny would purchase shares of a stock.  If the stock price increased, he sold the shares at a gain and counted it as a winner.  If the stock price dropped, he held on to it.  He was willing to ride a stock for as long as it took, if it didn't beat his purchase price.  Hence, his record was perfect.

[ParkingPlaces]

Using earthquakes as a sign in California is like using red lights as a sign anywhere else.

[screwtape]

Idi Amin appealed to the masses with platitudes of how the spoils of the wonderful Ugandan economy was finally in the hands of the people. 

pretty much all politicians say stuff like that

He then proceeded to destroy that economy. Like Obama

?  It was broke when he got it as a result of Bush tax cuts, two wars, a housing bubble and a financial meltdown from deregulation of the financial industry.  Specifically, what did Obama do to "destroy" the economy?

Amin commandeered a complicated machine with absolutely no clue how the machine worked, and then just drove it off a Cliff.  Like Obama.

Specifically, how did Obama do that?

If you cannot answer these two questions with specifics, then I expect you to retract your claims and not repeat them again.

Here's the scary part.  Obama was a lawyer working for Acorn that sued Citibank forcing them to give loans to unqualified homeowners.

that is a lie, spread by right wing loons.  Like you.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/loans.asp

All data and analysis says it was the banks fault. 
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119205925519455321.html
That's the Wall Street Journal, not particularly sympathetic to Obama.

Once upon a time there were federal regulations stipulating how could be approved for loans.  Wall street - not Acorn - lobbied congress to relax or remove those regulations because they thought they could make more money that way.  They also had the laws changed that regulated how much capital they had to have on hand, what proportion of their own money they had to put up and how much debt the banks could carry.  All of it added up to the disaster we had in 2008.  Not much of it has been changed.

here's another.  Also rather biased against Obama. The title is "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits"
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html
The money quote:

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards.

Another good quote:

The study identifies five causes of the subprime meltdown:
-Convoluted loan products that consumers didn’t understand.
-Credit ratings that didn’t do a good job highlighting the risks contained in subprime-backed securities.
-Lack of incentives for institutional investors to do their own research (they just relied on the credit ratings).
-Predatory lending and borrowing (which I think means fraud perpetrated by borrowers).
-Significant errors in the models used by credit rating agencies to assess subprime-backed securities.

There are more links I can dig up, but it will take some time. 

Until then, suck it, Harropson.  You are dead wrong. As usual, your source of information is political porn designed to gratify you and keep you stupid.

Now Obama waltzes into the presidency blaming Bush

rightly so

for failed economic policies that he (Obama) initiated starting before Bush's first term.

Totally untrue, as I've shown.
 

Do you even know what Idi Amin did?