FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Mark of the Beast
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
(12-02-2009, 10:18 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]You are so smart

Shucks
(12-02-2009, 10:08 PM)John C Wrote: [ -> ]Irish Cowboy: Just because protestants quote from the bible doesn't mean quoting from the bible is exclusively protestant (is that logical?), i make no apologies for doing so, i wish i knew the bible better so i could do it more, and God willing i will do just that in the future. I don't have time to give a list of bible and Church references that laud the practice; suffice to say they are numerous, with the addition that Jesus dismissed Satan using only scripture in the desert, used it repeatedly in his arguments with the pharisees, and St Paul also encouraged it for refuting error. I would recommend that as many Catholics as possible read their bible often. As far as i know you gain a partial indulgence for reading scripture for 1/2 hour every day.

The enemies of truth don't like it though, and i really don't see how it's my leading argument.

What you said is not logical.  What I said is logical.  I said it was a protestant tactic.  You extended my statement by adding the word exclusively.  That's a straw man.  You accuse others of using straw men, but you do it quite frequently yourself.  It may not have been your leading argument originally, but it was the first thing you said to me, therefore it was your leading argument when speaking to me.  Besides that, it was insulting.  I haven't insulted you in any way, besides telling you that you were wrong, and perhaps in calling you a kid.  I deduce that you must be younger than me because of your frequent (and highly annoying) use of the "word" 'u' when you mean 'you,' and 'b4' when you mean 'before.'  Most people older than me do not have this texting/chatting habit of abbreviating words this way.

(12-02-2009, 10:08 PM)John C Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: Besides, they're not required for buying and selling in the way most people understand the doomsday prophecies to predict.  They're just a facilitator.  It's not illegal to buy or sell something with no barcode
After what i've just said to Rosarium about misrepresenting my arguments, i'm not going to dignify that with any further response.

You don't have to dignify it at all.  By responding, you would only be un-dignifying it.  It's true, whether you respond to it or not.  Many small grocery stores and gas stations don't even have a barcode scanner, therefore, they don't use it for selling, and you don't use it for buying.  It's not a method.  The method of buying or selling involves you handing cash, check, or credit card to the clerk.  The scanning of the barcode is a method of finding out what is being sold for inventory and receipt itemization purposes.  It just saves you and the clerk time.


(12-02-2009, 10:08 PM)John C Wrote: [ -> ]From http://www.av1611.org/666/barcode.html   
(about 60% of the way down the page)
Quote:But. . .
Look again. . . All three guard bars contain the pattern "bar-space-bar" or "101". There is only ONE number, in TWENTY numbers (remember right and left numbers have different patterns) that contains the "101" pattern and that number is the right code SIX. Not the number one, or two, or three, etc. — but ONLY the right code SIX. I do seem to remember something about a mark on the RIGHT hand (Rev. 13:16). 

So it's not 1 in 10, it's 1 in 20 and also pretty strong evidence that u never read what i had originally referenced. That's unfortunate - i referenced it because it is worth reading,  - i would appreciate if u would do that b4 commenting further. And we are working on the assumption that these bars are necessary at all, AND on the assumption that they all had to be the same.

Then u have to factor in that these codes are used almost universally for buying and selling therefore bearing an uncanny resemblance to a certain biblical prophecy - THAT'S where the probability goes off the chart. We're not just talking about a random event like throwing dice or playing slot machines that have no relevance to anything else. The chances that we would get a 666 which so strikingly resembles the prophecy is something else entirely.

A random everyday 666 is ONE coincidence such as someone's name having 3 6s. Someone announcing one day that they are going to introduce a universal method of buying and selling is ONE coincidence (as it partially fulfills the prophecy).

Someone announcing one day that they are going to introduce a universal method of buying and selling that involves a blatant 666 is TWO coincidences - 'the number' and the 'buying and selling'.

When someone decides that we should all have some kind of mark that has 666 in it, for buying and selling, on our right hand or forehead, that will be THREE coincidences (the number, the buying and selling, and the right hand)

So far, we have 'the number' and the 'buying and selling'. To get the probability of two coincidences coinciding, u immediately reach stupidly large numbers.

First of all, we won't be required to put a barcode on our right hand or forehead.  If we were, obviously I and most others on this forum wouldn't do it.  So you can't talk about 3 coincidences, because one of them hasn't even happened.  We've had the 'number' ever since the Bible was written.  We don't have the "buying and selling" as you've been trying to argue.  Therefore, we have only one coincidence -- the fact that barcodes (not a method of buying and selling) have a few places in them where something resembling a 6 appears.
APOC XIII:xviii "Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man; and the number of him is six hundred and sixty six"

That number is a completely different number than three isolated sixes, or even three sixes at all for that matter. it is a specific number, and the barcode theory does not demonstrate it. Hear the voice of reason, brother. I speak as one who has fallen into many a conpiracy theory myself. If it's real, it will all add up. If it doesn't add up (this doesn't) it ain't real.
Pax.
(12-03-2009, 06:31 PM)Arun Wrote: [ -> ]APOC XIII:xviii "Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast. For it is the number of a man; and the number of him is six hundred and sixty six"

That number is a completely different number than three isolated sixes, or even three sixes at all for that matter. it is a specific number, and the barcode theory does not demonstrate it. Hear the voice of reason, brother. I speak as one who has fallen into many a conpiracy theory myself. If it's real, it will all add up. If it doesn't add up (this doesn't) it ain't real.
Pax.

Rosarium has already enumerated that difference in this very thread in great detail.  John_C is just not listening.  Instead, we have to keep hearing about how a sequence of coincidences eventually adds up to a proof.  I wish my math teachers thought this way!  Hmmm, wonder if it's a coincidence that there are also six letters in John_C's user name.....  :pazzo:
(12-02-2009, 10:18 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]You are so smart, a prophet in our time. What other words of wisdom do you have? What does this scripture warning mean then?

(12-02-2009, 11:24 PM)John C Wrote: [ -> ]Rosarium, that was brilliant, i haven't had a great day, but i laughed quite a lot at that one. If i had the know how, i'd post a cartoon of you absolutely kicking that straw man to within an inch of it's last blade of straw.

Is this sort of dialogue objectively necessary? I just got around to skimming this thread and all I see are insults against other posters' logic, intelligence, and other personal attributes.

Rosarium, you're more objective than the emotion you've subjected yourself to on this thread.

John C, I really think you meant (mean) well, but you're only returning the insults.

You could both really discuss this objectively (I don't think John C is as logically wrong as some claim he is), but this is not a debate, this is an ad hominem war.
(12-03-2009, 07:21 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Is this sort of dialogue objectively necessary?
Objectively no. Aber, Ich bin Menschliches, Allzumenschliches.

Quote:Rosarium, you're more objective than the emotion you've subjected yourself to on this thread.
Yes, I am, however I did write:
Quote:The barcodes do not contain the number "sescenti sexaginta sex".

Which was countered with a questioning of whether I read the site (which I did). This keeps coming up. I read the site. Also, if you read my posts, I am repeatedly confronted with accusations and very weird logic and it always defaults to "you didn't read the site".

Quote:(I don't think John C is as logically wrong as some claim he is)
Well, he cleverly refutes any statements with "did you read the site" and whatnot. He never addresses what we say. I considered what he said and the site, and found it to be unrelated. I explained why to connect the Mark/Number of the Beast to barcodes was completely illogical (based on the fact that barcodes do not contain that number, which I demonstrated).

So, for those who consistently refuse to be logical or address the statements I've made, I think I'm entitled to a little personal statements. I surely cannot address his non existent arguments.

When I consider a problem, and think about it, and respond with clearly communicated words, I do think I should be respected a little bit more than to be called a liar and accused of not reading the site.

We can start over, John C, do YOU have any thoughts on the matter? If your only input comes from directly quoting that site, there is no point for you to be in this discussion, but I will more directly address the site's statements (instead of yours) in a way which may help you find how misleading that site is.
(12-03-2009, 07:37 PM)Rosarium Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-03-2009, 07:21 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Is this sort of dialogue objectively necessary?
Objectively no. Aber, Ich bin Menschliches, Allzumenschliches.

Ok, as are all of us, but I don't have to tell you why that is not a good enough reason to justify unpleasant behavior.

By the way, why the German?

Quote:
Quote:Rosarium, you're more objective than the emotion you've subjected yourself to on this thread.
Yes, I am, however I did write:
Quote:The barcodes do not contain the number "sescenti sexaginta sex".

Which was countered with a questioning of whether I read the site (which I did). This keeps coming up. I read the site. Also, if you read my posts, I am repeatedly confronted with accusations and very weird logic and it always defaults to "you didn't read the site".

Ok. I am not a participant in this, so I have no significant investment in the outcome. But just so you know what I'm saying, I agree that he did ask you first whether or not you read the site, but you stepped it up a rather large notch in your first thoroughly explained refutation before he had any chance to reply:

Rosarium Wrote:I don't argue with illogical people as it really messes with my head.

Then you posted a rather insulting (in my opinion) mockery of John C’s logic.

Quote:Might as well try to convince ALICE the sky is red.

Here is ALICE: http://alice.pandorabots.com/

[Et cetera.]

Things seemed to deteriorate on both ends from there.

Quote:
Quote:(I don't think John C is as logically wrong as some claim he is)
Well, he cleverly refutes any statements with "did you read the site" and whatnot. He never addresses what we say. I considered what he said and the site, and found it to be unrelated. I explained why to connect the Mark/Number of the Beast to barcodes was completely illogical (based on the fact that barcodes do not contain that number, which I demonstrated).

So, for those who consistently refuse to be logical or address the statements I've made, I think I'm entitled to a little personal statements. I surely cannot address his non existent arguments.

When I consider a problem, and think about it, and respond with clearly communicated words, I do think I should be respected a little bit more than to be called a liar and accused of not reading the site.

Ok, well I'm tempted to debate in his place, but I really don't have time for the involvement right now. But yes, you are right that those things aren't good either. I did not say he was innocent and exonerated of all culpability. I just think these little discourses look very bad and, in a word, scandalous, to all those reading (which could be anyone). You were simply the first of the two posters I addressed to see my post (I think).

(12-03-2009, 09:17 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, as are all of us, but I don't have to tell you why that is not a good enough reason to justify unpleasant behavior.
I think we all have our moments online.

Quote:By the way, why the German?
Sounds more intimidating.

Quote:Then you posted a rather insulting (in my opinion) mockery of John C’s logic.
Lack of logic, yes.

Quote:Things seemed to deteriorate on both ends from there.

Well, I don't think it did. It was merely a logical progression from the beginning, which I recognised quite rapidly as being not logical. My statements fit the situation.

Quote:I just think these little discourses look very bad and, in a word, scandalous, to all those reading (which could be anyone). You were simply the first of the two posters I addressed to see my post (I think).
Maybe, but I did not think that when I wrote it nor do I think that now. I'll be more mindful of it though.
There seems to be an almost inexplicable breakdown in communication/understanding of my arguments - that i am saying that barcode is the Revelation 666, which i am not. I will certainly not explain it again and i am having much trouble in believing the sincerity of this misunderstanding. And that is the strawman that is being used YET AGAIN.

Cowboy said:
Quote:What you said is not logical.  What I said is logical.  I said it was a protestant tactic.  You extended my statement by adding the word exclusively
Sophister

We're just going to have to agree to disagree Rosarium, because i've got lots to do and not much of it involves posting on forums. I again apologise if i have unnecessarily offended u. Start over? no problem. We'll wipe the slate clean, but i don't intend posting on this thread or any other for a while (apart perhaps from 1 or 2 more on the 'Can non-Christians get to heaven') so it'll just have be something we can look forward to  ;)


(12-03-2009, 06:54 PM)IrishCowboy Wrote: [ -> ]John_C is just not listening.  Instead, we have to keep hearing about how a sequence of coincidences eventually adds up to a proof.  I wish my math teachers thought this way!  Hmmm, wonder if it's a coincidence that there are also six letters in John_C's user name.....  :pazzo:

Definition of coincidence:
the condition or fact of coinciding
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coincidence

In a murder trial, in the absence of something like video evidence of the murder actually taking place, the judge/jury will rely on a series of coincidences to arrive at their decision of guilty or not.

1. The victim was killed with a knife and the defendant owns such a knife. Two facts coincide - a coincidence
2. The victim was with the defendant around the time of the murder. Two facts coincide (proximity and time) - a coincidence
3. The victim had previously been threatened by the defendant - the victim is now dead by violent means. Two facts coincide - a coincidence
4. The victim lost much blood in the attack which would certainly have been on the murderers clothes - the defendant was seen burning his clothes shortly after the murder. Two facts coincide - a coincidence.

the defence will argue that these things are just a coincidence, the prosecution will argue that they are coincidences with meaning. And any reasonable person will see that u only need so many coincidences b4 u have proof.


Cheers INPEFESS, duly noted and all.  :)
(12-03-2009, 10:14 PM)John C Wrote: [ -> ]In a murder trial, in the absence of something like video evidence of the murder actually taking place, the judge/jury will rely on a series of coincidences to arrive at their decision of guilty or not.
Just wanted to point out there's the whole issue of "beyond a reasonable doubt"
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11