Owuor is lying, never prophesied no Nepal Quake

[vooke]

• Tweet

Here is the 'fulfilment' video a few hours young

And here is the original 'prophecy' released in October last year,which few bother referring to seeing many Christians thaw their brains upon hearing 'the Lord told me'

Let's note the key things in the original conveniently edited in the 'fulfilment' video
1. There is intensive mining in the mountain, he saw caterpillars, dumpers
2. There are roads on the mountain top
3. The quake had rocks and the mining machines tumbling down the mountain and crushing people in they houses
4. Brownish soil in the mountain

FACTS
1. There is no mining in the Everest
2. There are no roads usable by bikes at the top or even bottom let alone lorries of the Everest
3. Everest is for a better part covered with snow
4. There was avalanches (snow) but note it killed the mountaineers and these was very few, under 50, compared to the total count of 3,200+

CONCLUSION
There is NO WAY anybody hearing this prophecy could connect it to Everest seeing there is no mining nor roads at the top of the mountain.

It is quite clear the relevant mountain in the prophecy had no snow explained by heavy mining at the top plus road and even soil color. Snow would have been very HARD to miss if he was seeing Everest unlike say Mount Kenya with its tiny snow caps.

And finally, whereas in his prophecy he saw mountain rocks and mining equipments and machines crushing people, none of this has been reported. And none will seeing we don't have caterpillars and trucks on the mountain. The deaths from Everest was relatively few and not caused by rocks nor machinery.

What is Owuor's MO?
To borrow from someone,
Owuor's 'Prophecies' are akin to the Texas Sharper Shooters Fallacy.Fire off random shots in the dark,switch on the light and paint bulls eye around the spot where your bullet hit,then do a victory dance on your detractors face - MarieSucre

The whole idea is to pass himself as a true prophet

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The man was speaking in metaphors.  Prophet Elijah would have found another day job in the Information Age.

[vooke]

Not really.
If he spoke, wrote and distributed, he would have found himself in the same position as Owuor; contradictions. You are stretching your antitheistic rhetoric too hard. Get a more sensible reason to reject Christianity or keep deluding yourself

The man was speaking in metaphors.  Prophet Elijah would have found another day job in the Information Age.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Not really.
If he spoke, wrote and distributed, he would have found himself in the same position as Owuor; contradictions. You are stretching your antitheistic rhetoric too hard. Get a more sensible reason to reject Christianity or keep deluding yourself

The man was speaking in metaphors.  Prophet Elijah would have found another day job in the Information Age.

But that is what I am saying.  vooke would be all over him...who has seen flying chariots?

Otherwise, I am not antitheist.  That sounds like Richard Dawkins.

[vooke]

Moses wrote Torah, wrote of the split Red Sea and still nobody believes him.
So it's not really about whether Elijah wrote of the flying chariots or some editors did it.
Jeremiah, the weeping prophet. He saw, was told to write, wrote and they still rejected him, died the most dejected messenger.

once you make up your mind to disbelieve, you will dismiss God's own handwriting witnessed by you firsthand seeing its Verdana and not Arial. That's how it works. Disbelieve and then fish for the flimsiest excuse

But that is what I am saying.  vooke would be all over him...who has seen flying chariots?

Otherwise, I am not antitheist.  That sounds like Richard Dawkins.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Moses wrote Torah, wrote of the split Red Sea and still nobody believes him.
So it's not really about whether Elijah wrote of the flying chariots or some editors did it.
Jeremiah, the weeping prophet. He saw, was told to write, wrote and they still rejected him, died the most dejected messenger.

once you make up your mind to disbelieve, you will dismiss God's own handwriting witnessed by you firsthand seeing its Verdana and not Arial. That's how it works. Disbelieve and then fish for the flimsiest excuse

But that is what I am saying.  vooke would be all over him...who has seen flying chariots?

Otherwise, I am not antitheist.  That sounds like Richard Dawkins.

I guess like the writing on the wall..mene tekel....

I used to think a miracle would do it for me.  A booming voice from the clouds would not have hurt either.  I probably would have believed if I were there in a different epoch.

Given that advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, I am no longer sure if there is anything that would make me believe certain things.

That does not mean I am antitheist.

[vooke]

Look at Judas.
Hanged around Jesus for a better part of his public life. Ends up selling him for 30 shekels.

Jews was notorious in demanding signs. I find it interesting that John the Baptist, a prophet, the last of the prophets and the forerunner of Jesus did no miracles and he had a sizeable crowd. Jesus on the other hand dished them out with little restraint no they was not convinced yet. Miracles are likely to convince as they are unlikely to.

Tell me. What would convince you of the authenticity of the Christian faith?  Don't answer, just think it through

I guess like the writing on the wall..mene tekel....

I used to think a miracle would do it for me.  A booming voice from the clouds would not have hurt either.  I probably would have believed if I were there in a different epoch.

Given that advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, I am no longer sure if there is anything that would make me believe certain things.

That does not mean I am antitheist.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Look at Judas.
Hanged around Jesus for a better part of his public life. Ends up selling him for 30 shekels.

Jews was notorious in demanding signs. I find it interesting that John the Baptist, a prophet, the last of the prophets and the forerunner of Jesus did no miracles and he had a sizeable crowd. Jesus on the other hand dished them out with little restraint no they was not convinced yet. Miracles are likely to convince as they are unlikely to.

Tell me. What would convince you of the authenticity of the Chriatian faith?

I guess like the writing on the wall..mene tekel....

I used to think a miracle would do it for me.  A booming voice from the clouds would not have hurt either.  I probably would have believed if I were there in a different epoch.

Given that advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, I am no longer sure if there is anything that would make me believe certain things.

That does not mean I am antitheist.

Personally I have Christian values.  I am culturally a Christian.  I think Christianity(its modern manifestation) is MOSTLY beneficial.

But I don't share the underlying beliefs.  I don't know of anything that  will ever make me believe such things. 

Most things that would have convinced me in the past, would now be relegated to unknown(not well understood) category.

[Bella]

@ Terminator,

Given that advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, I am no longer sure if there is anything that would make me believe certain things.

Interesting. I would think that this would be a plus for the authenticity of miracle stories, not a negative, since after all, they are claimed to be performed with a superior knowledge, not none. I remember reading a catholic book on angels called "My angel will go before thee", where the author pretty much said the same thing: The activity of an angel to a human looks supernatural, but to the angel it is natural using the intelligence and knowledge he has. With God, that is blown out of the water, since we would be speaking simply of far superior "technology" by far superior intellects, so this would accord with the "sufficiently advanced technology" quote, in my view.

Also, why dismiss the Christianity of old? Hey, It is the Christianity of old that built the Christian culture you speak of, not the Christianity of the 21st century, or 20th. Western culture, and all its pillars that make it the envy of the world; The very "invention" of science (and the general value placed in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake), universities, the entire healthcare system, modern education, even law and government (or the western legal system), so many western cities (even capitalism!) all of that would be squat without the Christianity of old and the West would be no better than Asia. I think people denigrate historical Christianity far too much by focusing exclusively on what (in perspective) are slices of negative history and leaving out the huge chunks of centuries that went into building that civilization bottom up especially beyond the specific area of Rome/Italy and after the collapse of the empire's Western wing after 500 AD. The West owes its superior status in the world to its Christian past but they'd rather eat dirt than admit that openly. They remind me of the tower of Babel in the Bible, sometimes. Honestly.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

@ Terminator,

Given that advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic, I am no longer sure if there is anything that would make me believe certain things.

Interesting. I would think that this would be a plus for the authenticity of miracle stories, not a negative, since after all, they are claimed to be performed with a superior knowledge, not none. I remember reading a catholic book on angels called "My angel will go before thee", where the author pretty much said the same thing: The activity of an angel to a human looks supernatural, but to the angel it is natural using the intelligence and knowledge he has. With God, that is blown out of the water, since we would be speaking simply of far superior "technology" by far superior intellects, so this would accord with the "sufficiently advanced technology" quote, in my view.

Also, why dismiss the Christianity of old? Hey, It is the Christianity of old that built the Christian culture you speak of, not the Christianity of the 21st century, or 20th. Western culture, and all its pillars that make it the envy of the world; The very "invention" of science (and the general value placed in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake), universities, the entire healthcare system, modern education, even law and government (or the western legal system), so many western cities (even capitalism!) all of that would be squat without the Christianity of old and the West would be no better than Asia. I think people denigrate historical Christianity far too much by focusing exclusively on what (in perspective) are slices of negative history and leaving out the huge chunks of centuries that went into building that civilization bottom up especially beyond the specific area of Rome/Italy and after the collapse of the empire's Western wing after 500 AD. The West owes its superior status in the world to its Christian past but they'd rather eat dirt than admit that openly. They remind me of the tower of Babel in the Bible, sometimes. Honestly.

Bella,

That far superior technology means that the protagonist is skilled at manipulating nature in ways that man is not.  The issue is whether that makes them above and independent of nature.  Not necessarily in my opinion. 

It did not take much for natives to worship the European explorer with superior technology.  Shoot a noble savage from several yards and you have their attention.  For me, the distinction between a miracle and this kind of phenonomenon is not clear.  I wouldn't know when I am being a noble savage.

While it may be impressive stuff, it would just trigger more questions rather than settle others in my case.  It's not just stubborness on my part.  My position arises because it's no longer clear to me where nature stops and supernatural starts. 

I prefer modern Christianity not so much for what it stands for, but rather its effect.  I find medieval Christianity indistinguishable from ISIS to be honest.  Yet the Christian societies were able to become better because Jesus' teachings were generally not as harsh and inhumane than Mohamed's.

I think Islam started off as the more progressive of the two.  But the Jihadist culture seems to have ultimately overshadowed whatever good aspects they may had.  While Hamas has a positive impact on many Lebanese lives, I think most people, including Kenyans will agree the world would mostly be a  better place without this belief system.

[MOON Ki]

The very "invention" of science (and the general value placed in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake), universities, the entire healthcare system, modern education, even law and government (or the western legal system), so many western cities (even capitalism!) all of that would be squat without the Christianity of old and the West would be no better than Asia.

I am chuckling as I think of "old Christianity"'s attitude general attitude to science and what it considered "the notion that man and not God could control things to do with nature".   (One case that will be familiar to all is the little matter of Galileo and the Inquisition.)  I also believe there were universities in North Africa and elsewhere in the Islamic world well before any in Europe.

If I had the time, I would go through your list.   For now, I will say that the fact that certain things happened when the power of the Christian Church was its peak does not necessarily mean that the church brought them about.

[MOON Ki]

Terminator:

You are  right only if you see "old Christianity" in terms of anything to do with God; but the most significant (in terms of influence and impact) part of "old Christianity" had very little to do with God.   In those terms, much of "old Christianity" is best viewed in the same way that one would view a large corporation today: in terms of wealth, power, pussy, ... for the men who lead.

To my mind, the essence of Christ's message boils down to:

(a) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

(b) Love God above all else.

So, as I see it, to the extent that anybody goes along with those, they are Christian, even if they are "Muslim", or "Hindu", or whatever.   That is why I am always amused by the little skirmishes here by the SDAs, the Catholics, Protestant wings, ....

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Terminator:

You are  right only if you see "old Christianity" in terms of anything to do with God; but the most significant (in terms of influence and impact) part of "old Christianity" had very little to do with God.   In those terms, much of "old Christianity" is best viewed in the same way that one would view a large corporation today: in terms of wealth, power, pussy, ... for the men who lead.

I view it mostly in terms of impact.  Indeed it was powerful.  I don't think the underlying theology has changed that much.  But I think among the major religions, it has made the best accommodation with the modern world - mostly by generally high levels of tolerance.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Terminator:

To my mind, the essence of Christ's message boils down to:

(a) Love thy neighbor as thyself.

(b) Love God above all else.

So, as I see it, to the extent that anybody goes along with those, they are Christian, even if they are "Muslim", or "Hindu", or whatever.   That is why I am always amused by the little skirmishes here by the SDAs, the Catholics, Protestant wings, ....

Yep.  This in my opinion is the redeeming grace of Christianity.  Even if one does not believe in God. 

And to some extent the doctrine of turning the other cheek; though I disagree with it in extreme cases.

[MOON Ki]

I view it mostly in terms of impact.  Indeed it was powerful.  I don't think the underlying theology has changed that much.  But I think among the major religions, it has made the best accommodation with the modern world - mostly by generally high levels of tolerance.

Buddhism?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I view it mostly in terms of impact.  Indeed it was powerful.  I don't think the underlying theology has changed that much.  But I think among the major religions, it has made the best accommodation with the modern world - mostly by generally high levels of tolerance.

Buddhism?

I would say after Buddhism.  The fact that one rarely hears about them means they have just blended in.

[MOON Ki]

Terminator:

I can't put my finger on your "religious beliefs", so if I may ask: what do you think of something like Shinto, which, in some ways, is very "African" (and in fact makes "African superstitions" look space-age) but is practiced by some quite "high-tech" people?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Terminator:

I can't put my finger on your "religious beliefs", so if I may ask: what do you think of something like Shinto, which, in some ways, is very "African" (and in fact makes "African superstitions" look space-age) but is practiced by some quite "high-tech" people?

I am a heathen who embraces the human condition.  With all its contradictions.   I generally don't believe in gods.  But I could understand why someone would believe in them. 

I think superstition is part of us.  When I am watching a game, I find that I think that tightening the anal sphincter would improve the chances of my team winning. 

Perfectly rational people can believe stuff that is clearly not true.  Compartmentalization allows the rational Japanese guy to function normally despite superstitious beliefs.

While I have no idea why people believe these things in the first place, it's a safe bet, with few exceptions, that whatever one believes in, it was passed on from the parents. 

[Bella]

The very "invention" of science (and the general value placed in the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake), universities, the entire healthcare system, modern education, even law and government (or the western legal system), so many western cities (even capitalism!) all of that would be squat without the Christianity of old and the West would be no better than Asia.

I am chuckling as I think of "old Christianity"'s attitude general attitude to science and what it considered "the notion that man and not God could control things to do with nature".   (One case that will be familiar to all is the little matter of Galileo and the Inquisition.)  I also believe there were universities in North Africa and elsewhere in the Islamic world well before any in Europe.

Chuckle all you want. You are pointing out a single incident in centuries of the church's dealing with science, that you think your view is more than a general bias is what I find chuckling. Exactly where/from whom do you think the scientific method was developed? Who do you think sponsored scientific expeditions/scientists? MoonKi, it would be a good idea is you learned history from actual historians and kept from popular mythology with an enlightenment anti-Christian bias. I remember the other day you tried to teach me catholic history by citing SDA beliefs, and you didn't even know how ridiculous that sounded to someone who has read even a little bit of Christian history. Old Christianity believed that nature had order inherent to it, and therefore was intelligible to humans. That is, they thought they could understand it, that it was possible to discover the rules by which nature operates. That is why monks became scientists, because to them, it was a normal part of their religion.

If I had the time, I would go through your list.   For now, I will say that the fact that certain things happened when the power of the Christian Church was its peak does not necessarily mean that the church brought them about.

You can say much, of course. But from the above and my past interactions with you on Christian history, I don't expect you to do much more than grab a list of popular myths and present them here with a lot of confidence, but if you do just do me a favour and please don't start with the flat earth business. I would however be curious to learn how you will distinguish the development of modern healthcare, charity and even the notion of human rights from western Christian beliefs on man and the attempts by western religious to live out the teachings of Jesus in society, all the way from the Roman empire to the middle ages and beyond.

[Bella]

I view it mostly in terms of impact.  Indeed it was powerful.  I don't think the underlying theology has changed that much.  But I think among the major religions, it has made the best accommodation with the modern world - mostly by generally high levels of tolerance.

Buddhism?

I would say after Buddhism.  The fact that one rarely hears about them means they have just blended in.

Terminator, I like Buddhism and some kinds of Hinduism, because I think their philosophy is in many ways similar to the teachings of Jesus on what a moral human life looks like. However, I think your assessment of Buddhism (historically) is limited by the fact that you are Western, both in terms of being Kenyan and American in cultural outlook. To the West, Buddhism is exotic and novel, and it, along with Hinduism, does not have people trying to kill Bazungu in the name of God like Islam, so the lack of historical beef with it (owing to its exoticness) and the fact that, like Christianity and Hinduism, it has not made negative waves in modern culture, I think is why you don't hear much of it. The West has no axe to grind with it whether historically or in terms of modern conflicts (or terrorism). However, historically, Buddhism and Hinduism have their own share of conflicts. Its simply the nature of humans that group-differences often result in some kind of clash or oppression or domination of some kind.