-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is it Possible to Change the Future? Here is the Scenario:
- Thread starter allfoak
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
Yet that is what it sounds like you are claiming.
But if you are content with not clarifying your position....
allfoak
Alchemist
i am able to clarify my position whenever asked.
You didn't ask.
My position is this:
The viewer was both correct and incorrect.
It is a paradox.
The goal of catching the criminal at the restaurant would not have been accomplished had the viewer been incorrect.
Nor would the goal have been accomplished if the viewer was correct.
It was necessary for the viewer to be both correct and incorrect in order for the goal to be accomplished.
Was the future changed?
Or perhaps time is just an aspect of our mind that we can move through at will.
Perhaps it is possible to be correct and incorrect at the same time without contradiction.
Perhaps...
allfoak
Alchemist
I would not be discussing it if it were not real.
Lyn Buchanan and many others train people to do this.
It is called controlled remote viewing
Skwim
Veteran Member
Yes they are, but a remote viewer changing the future? I've never heard of any Christian talk about it. Or anyone in either of the other two religions.
.
Skwim
Veteran Member
In what way was the viewer correct? He saw the criminal in the restaurant at 9pm, an event that never took place.
But it was accomplished. The criminal was arrested despite the fact that the viewer was wrong.
Why not? The criminal would have been at the restaurant at 9pm as would have the police.
Why? The viewer was incorrect yet the police caught him, which makes being correct moot.
Nope. The future was destined to include a remote viewer who mistakenly saw a criminal in a restaurant at 9:00, and police who would be at that restaurant at 8:30 to arrest him. It could be no other way.
.
I can change the future.
allfoak
Alchemist
allfoak
Alchemist
That does not change its relevance.
If it is determined that we can change someone's future, then i would imagine that opens the door for a great deal of interfaith discussion.
It actually brings into play the relevancy of the current religious system.
It is assumed that our future is in the hands of God.
What it means for our future to be in the hands of God changes forever for most of the religions on the planet if what we are discussing is acknowledged for the power that it has to change lives.
allfoak
Alchemist
I have never doubted you.
allfoak
Alchemist
The viewer saw the criminal eating at 9pm, if that were not correct then the police would have shown up at the restaurant either too early or too late but because they were told 9pm they were able to be there at the time necessary to arrest him.
That means the viewer had to be correct for the goal to be accomplished.
The understanding of this can easily get lost in the explanation, which is kind of how i am feeling at the moment.
It is a paradox, something that is very difficult to explain.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Am I supposed to take this as meaning you were wrong in saying "I would think at the very least the big 3 religions would qualify as being concerned with the future"?
But the perceived future you see as changing was never to be anyway. Your "changing it" was merely part of its inevitability. The future included your participation as a "changer."
How? And which "religious system" are you talking about?
How does this figure into one's participation in changing the future, which is what you're talking about?
Sorry, but this is unintelligible.
And showing up too early turned out to be just as good as showing up on time. I grant you that the police profited by having been told where the criminal would be and what time he was thought to be there, but so what? Had they been told the criminal would be there at some other time, perhaps they might not have caught him and perhaps they would. Nice that the viewer was not incorrect by a larger margin.
Correct enough. But now you're simply talking about how fortuitous the police were. If the viewer was not correct enough the police may not have got their man. But how lucky the police were is not the issue. The issue is: was the viewer correct about the the criminal being there at 9pm, and the answer is NO.
What is the paradox? The most I see is a lucky tip for the police, some of it right and some of it wrong.
.
arthra
Baha'i
Police agencies use a variety of techniques nowadays..but I'd be more interested in how the targeted person ... the presumed thief or criminal can be rehabilitated..
Also what if the presumed criminal is only presumed so because of his/her race or economic condition? We call that "profiling".
Also what if the presumed criminal is only presumed so because of his/her race or economic condition? We call that "profiling".
I would still assert that the answer to the OP question would depend on its genuineness, especially since reading that description.
allfoak
Alchemist
Perhaps i am misunderstanding.
What is it exactly that you think may not be genuine, the scenario or the controlled remote viewing?
allfoak
Alchemist
So now, this comes to the forefront.
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...d-soon-be-treated-as-a-mental-illness.187480/
http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...d-soon-be-treated-as-a-mental-illness.187480/
The controlled remote viewing.