We see what we need to see. My post was a 'claim', but an observation. Re Revelation 13 context, this is where I see meaning.
" 11Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon. 12And he exercises all the authority of the first beast in his presence, and causes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. "
There are plenty of vids of the destruction in Santa Rosa fires, for example. Firefighters testify this is far too hot to be a 'forest fire' or 'brush fire'. Stone doesn't burn, nor bricks. Structural timbers char to about a one inch depth, but remain structural in a normal house fire. Melted cars in the street next to standing un-burned trees. We see what fits our paradigm and knowledge. Mine is flawed as anyone's.
Well, in context refers to the entirety and how it affects what we read. You isolated a single scripture, removed from it's intended context, and said "see it's in the bible". So, essentially, that's meaningless because everything else surrounding it has a very specific meaning and context it's written in. Removing it from that context is merely changing the bible to meet your ideas. Invalidating your claim.
With your logic we could say the bible proves the existence of life on other planets.
Deuteronomy 14:21
You shall not eat anything which dies of itself. You may give it to the alien who is in your town,
But is that the correct context?
You absolutely did make a claim. You claim Rev 13 is evidence of your claim that fires were set by space lasers. Two claims.
Yet you provided zero evidence. You tell us what other people supposedly said. That's not proof or observation.
You claim there are plenty of videos yet not one is here. Are we just supposed to take your word for it on these two statements?
This is the problem with conspiracy theories, when questioned to prove them the majority don't even try. They think because they make claims that's all that's needed. Wrong.
And lets say that these interviews with firemen making these statements are real. That these are verifiable firemen actually working the scene and seeing things first hand, which would not be satisfactory to assume in a real scenario. How do you get from them claiming these are not normal fires to satellites in space using special hidden technology to start fires purposefully. And why?
Wouldn't it be more feasible to send a few guys out to start fires than using an advanced tech alerting people to its existence? If an attack why not attack more relevant places?
But here's the catch to any answers you provide. It will all be unprovable. You'll have to guess and presume a good bit of it, and yet rather than accept that there is no clear, proven line from point A to point B you'll insist you know enough to prove it.
And when cornered with the inability to provide facts it becomes "well it's just a theory". The fail safe get out of jail free card when you cant support your claims.
Nothing personal. It's just the standard MO for conspiracy theorists. It gets old.
3
