[geraint.faughn]

i bumped in to him while trying to find out some more information on edgar cayce. he basically denounces cayce and other "false prophets" and had a list of a few things thaat cayce and nastrodamus predicted wrong. i think one prophecy from which cayce gave is that san francisco (i might be wrong) would be under water in 1968-1969. and nastrodamus prophecy of a evil terror supposedly raising in 1999. how do you feel about this?

[aaaaaaaabbbby]

if you look at any prophet or psychic that has made predictions, you will notice that they arent infalible. a lot of cayce's pridictions did come true.
i looked in my "earth changes update" book which was written by his son hugh lynn cayce and i didnt find any cayce prediction where he said that san fran. would be underwater in 1968-1969. what i did find is this:

"in 1936 a 50-year old man asked edgar cayce, "will san francisco suffer from such a catastrophe [earthquake] this year?" the answer was:

we do not find that this particular district (san francisco) in the present year will sufer the great material damages that have been experienced heretofore. while portions of the country will be affected, we find these will be farther [i]east[i] than san francisco-or those[i]south[i]where there has [i]not[i]been heretofore the greater activity. 270-35, feb,21,1936

he did mention portions of the east coast being underwater, particularly nyc.
cayce did predict a lot of the earthquake activity that would happen in calif.

nostrodamus i couldnt say. im sure a lot gets misconstrued in the translation of his work.

[Dvjkefdw]

i think one prophecy from which cayce gave is that san francisco (i might be wrong) would be under water in 1968-1969.

i think ra's answer to don elkins about cayce's prophecies was pretty good. they said that cayce saw the strongest probabilities but paid less attention to other possibilities and that it is very difficult to specify time accurately when viewing possible events from outside of time, as cayce was (and ra, too).

link to the quote: http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?session_id=65#8

[Olphander]

this guy is evangelical. one of the problems of christianity is that it sets absolutes. one of those happens to be that if a prophet makes any mistake, he is obviously a false prophet. in christian theology, there is a set plan that god intends to fulfill, regardless of man's involvement, the future is set in stone and the path cannot be altered.

so (from personal experience) christians systematically denounce anything that falls outside of christian or biblical dogma. this is basically a tenant of their faith. it makes it very difficult for them to trust outside sources of information or source which is one of the reasons its so hard to expand their beliefs beyond the bible.

what this does is narrow their vision, they cannot see that in reality, the future is simply not set and is under our control. while in the long run, we are destined to return to the one, the path of getting there is our own choice. that means that while prophesy can be accurate, there is always a chance that the future will change in spite of it. prophesy, in this nature, is more a probability than an absolute because the one thing it cannot change is freedom of choice.

to think of it from another way, lets say you are are a lab technician testing mice in a maze. at each turn or split in the path, there is a likelihood that the mouse will choose a certain path. being as you are looking from above, you can see all the possibilities the mouse can take, and the most likely path he might take. you can see where he's come from and how that affects where he's going. in the same way, prophesy comes from a perspective with a larger viewpoint, it sees all the circomstances up till that point, which point to a future with a greater potential of coming about, based on past events. that does not prevent another future from existing, or as to say, a mouse from choosing an unexpected path. while the prophesy points out the most likely future, it does not prevent other possible futures from existing simultaneously and therefor being a very real possibility

also, i think in cayce's case, dw has mentioned some where that the reasons his prophesies did not in fact all come true was due to the fact he was experiencing and expressing some negativity at the time, which was affecting his visions.

[Pharmaciest]

there's an old saying that a prophet whose predictions don't come true, is a prophet who has done his job well. cayce just may have alerted enough people to the awareness of a potential unpleasant event that we/they have chosen a more peaceful path.

so i don't think that disqualifies him at all. after all the future is plastic and there are many probabilities that we may choose from. what cayce very likely did was look at probabilities, and choose the most likely one at that point in time/space. because of our free will there's no guarantee that we will ever experience the most likely scenario, since we can choose to change it at any given time.

my friend/teacher bob childers, (who wrote the ra study guide) once told me/us that it's similar to a computer with it's default settings. we are free to make any choice we want to, but if we do not choose, we will get the default settings. so if we all go with 'default settings' we will always experience the most likely scenario at any given time. on the other hand we can choose another probability at any time.