digg

Join DiggAbout

Psychic Sylvia Browne, Like All Psychics, Is A Fraud! watch!

kmov.com — If you buy into this stuff, you deserve to be parted from your money by these charlatans.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • vault, on 05/16/2008, -0/+11Sick business...just capitalizing on people's misery/hope.

    I'm not one to criticize the way other people make money, and I'm not even convinced it's the government's place to make this illegal, but it's such a sleazy business to be in.
  • dlbfromLA, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7When I start to believe in this crap is when one of them gives me the winning lottery numbers!!
    • drachemorder, on 05/16/2008, -0/+54 8 15 16 23 42.
      But you might not like the outcome if you win with them...
    • GodzGurl59, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Dude, no calling up the unlucky numbers from Lost! That is just bad of you................you have jinxed all of us who just read them. so not right! LOL!
  • IconoclastStill, on 05/16/2008, -2/+6Ghosts, spirits, psychics, astrology (and - no offense - religion) are all dependent on blind faith in something which can not be tested or proven. Belief is a powerful force which enables some to overcome tremendous difficulties . . . but so does the SEAL training. Unfortunately, there are those who seek to channel that belief - or need to believe - to their own ends, e.g., Jimmy Jones types, pedophile priests and, very definitely, psychics.
  • GodzGurl59, on 05/16/2008, -4/+4Ah, Icon..........ya had me up until the religion part, and I might agree with you if you leave out the Bible. Too many things in it have come to pass for it to not be real. By the same token there are also true prophets today.............know a few and what they have said has come to pass. Not that you would believe.
    Love ya!
    • ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -2/+4Exactly what in the bible has come true, documented outside the pages of that same book?
      • Phyraxus, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Duh, old testament prophesy was fulfilled in the new testament pages. Completely different book mmkay...
        /s
      • GodzGurl59, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2The book of Daniel names 4 kingdoms that would arise. This book was written when Daniel was in the kingdom of Babylon serving in the court of King Nebuchadnezzar. The king actually wrote one section of this book concerning an incident that happened to him. As to the kingdoms referred to, they are in order: Babylon, Medes/Persian, Greece, and Rome. Daniel asked an angel what the beast he saw meant and the angel told him. Daniel lived until king Cyrus and the decree to send the Jews back to Jerusalem.

        The visions also include very descriptive images of the kingdoms. For instance in one there is an image of a goat with two horns, one larger than the other...the Medes/Persian kingdoms in which one had more power/influence. This goat was run down by a ram that had one horn, very large (Greece and Alexander), this horn was broken and 4 horns came up in its place....the four generals that took over his kingdom as he had no son.

        Another place in that book it talks of kings of the north/south and giving of daughters referring to The Ptolemy's and Antiochus IV Epiphanes and so on. If you know ancient history, as every one should, you can find the wars and things that occurred between this last group of kings. Antiochus IV Epiphanes destroyed the temple at one point and sacrificed a pig on it....

        Here is a fun link to study the history, unless of course you already know it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_Empire

        So you see............that is pretty clear!
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Given that the book, in something close to its present form, was compiled in 325 AD by the First Council of Nicea, how can you be sure that, of the many works that were considered for the end compilation, those parts that best fit history weren't just picked to add some veracity to the stories across the whole work? Or that elements of those parts weren't modified to better fit, such as names of people and places?
        • GodzGurl59, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2 The Hebrew section has books that were found amongst the dead sea scrolls dating from over a 1000 BC that remain COMPLETELY unchanged from what we have now. The NT books were letters that were passed from home church to home church, most probably all written BEFORE 70 AD when the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed. The Christians would have fled before this due to the warning given by Jesus in Matthew and seen again in the book of Luke.

          I do believe the OT was left the way the Jews had kept it except for being put in a different order. Thus the council decided which books to be put into a GROUPING and it is pretty much what it is today.

          As to your conspiracy theory, I doubt they could have gotten away with that, as the OT history concerned the Hebrews and they haven't popped up to say that it is all wrong and not the way we had it written. Since many don't like Christianity, don't you think SOMEWHERE along the line they would have?

          BTW, names of people aren't included in the text, but rather understood from what was written. History and the Bible jive, but you go on about your business.
        • ApokalypseNow, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4I wasn't speaking so much of the OT as the NT - as you say, discrepancies between the OT as used by Christians and the Torah as used by Jews would have been noticed and pointed out. I'm not necessarily trying for a "conspiracy theory" per se, just asking questions based on knowledge of the following:

          There didn't exist such things as coroners, reporters, cameras, newspapers, forensic science, or even police detectives back then. All the technology, all the people we have pursuing the truth of various claims now, did not exist then. In those days, few would even be able to check the details of a story if they wanted to--and few wanted to. Instead, people based their judgment on the display of sincerity by the storyteller, by his ability to impress them with a show or simply to persuade and "sell" his story, and by the potential rewards his story had to offer ("Sage, Saint and Sophist: Holy Men and Their Associates in the Early Roman Empire" by Graham Anderson). At the same time, doubters didn't care to waste the time or money debunking yet another crazy cult, of which there were hundreds then (Graham Anderson's book again). And so it should not surprise us that we have no writings by anyone hostile to Christianity until a century after it began--not even slanders or lies. Clearly, no doubter cared to check or even challenge the story in print until it was too late to investigate the facts. ("On Superstition," Moralia 168C)

          Also, at the First Council of Nicea that I had mentioned earlier, there were significant changes made to the work that would eventually become the NT. At that time, many long-standing works in the regional versions of that book were thrown out, and many long-discarded works were reintegrated. If there were to be any changes, they would likely happen there, and what better way to do so than at a meeting held for that purposes of deciding what was canon, held at Constantine's request?

          Also, many of the records from that time took certain liberties with the truth. For example, In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin. Yet do we believe any of it? Not really. And we shouldn't.
  • alkajazz, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I'm going on the record here and saying that Psychics are *****.
  • Phyraxus, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1Psychics are just like prophets. Say something vague enough that can be interpreted any which way possible and given a long enough time, it will come to pass.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.