The Prophecy of Saint Malachy

I don't really know why, but for some reason Saint Malachy's prophecy of the last 112 popes popped into my head yesterday. Saint Malachy, a 12th century Irish Saint, wrote 112 short Latin phrases that purport to describe each of the last 112 popes (or their coat of arms). Although they've been around for centuries, they reemerged and gained popularity after the death of Pope John Paul II, because the next Pope (Pope Benedict XVI) would be the second to the last Pope according to the prophecy. The final Pope, PETRUS ROMANUS (Peter the Roman) would come after the death of Pope Benedict XVI, and Peter the Roman would reign during the destruction of the Catholic Church and/or the city of Rome. So anyways, what I thought about doing yesterday was looking for a Cardinal named Peter. I figured if Malachy's prophecy really is accurate (and some claim it is completely accurate, yet the problem I have with them is that they are very vague), then maybe there is a Cardinal named Peter currently living. Well I found a list of cardinals and I think there were five named Peter, but I don't recall any of them being Roman (that is, other than the fact that they are Roman Catholic) or Italian. But apparently I wasn't the first person to get the idea to try and determine who the next Pope may be based on the prophecy of St. Malachy. Others have already looked into the topic and it seems one of the most likely candidates is a priest named Pietro Parolin (Pietro is Italian for Peter). Parolin is currently the Holy See's Undersecretary of State for Relations with States, a high ranking position in the Vatican's diplomatic service. Now some people think that Peter the Roman won't actually be elected as Pope, as the prophecy merely states that he will be on the throne at the time. Malachy gives a lot more detail on Peter the Roman that he does the other popes, leading some to think that he may not actually be a pope, just the guy in charge. When a Pope dies, someone else temporarily handle's the affairs of the state while the Cardinal's are electing a new Pope. So it may be that he isn't an actual Pope, but a regent ruling after the death of the Pope. Or maybe he is elected Pope. That's part of the problem with Malachy's prophecy, it's very vague. Parolin isn't a cardinal, but technically the Pope doesn't have to be a Cardinal; it's just the cardinals typically elect a cardinal.

As for Parolin's background, he does appear to be a fitting candidate. He is not only a high ranking official in the Holy See, but he is also from northern Italy. The area of Italy he is from was part of the Holy Roman Empire during the 12th century when the prophecy was written, so he could be classified as a "Roman" (although we now view the Holy Roman Empire historically as a separate empire from the classical Roman Empire, at the time it was viewed as a continuation of the classical Roman Empire).

So anyways, Peter the Roman is allegedly who will be in charge when Rome is destroyed. Here is the translated prophecy regarding him:

"During the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church, the seat will be occupied by Peter the Roman,
who will feed his sheep in many tribulations;
and when these things are finished, the seven-hilled city will be destroyed,
and the formidable Judge will judge his people.
The End."

What I find most interesting about all this is the timing. This is yet another example of a prophecy that seems to indicate an end of something sometime around the year 2012. Whether this prophecy just indicates the end of Catholic Church, Rome, the world, or any combination of those I don't know. I also find it interesting though because the Bible indicates in Revelation 18 that the city of Rome will be destroyed sometime in the future. Is this a reference to the same event mentioned in the Bible? And why does it seem to indicate an end sometime around the year 2012? I'm still on the fence regarding what the year 2012 will bring, whether it be a great awakening, a major disaster (possibly caused by the Sun), the end of the world, or just business as usual. I don't think anyone can really predict the end of the world, so I don't think that is what it is. But that doesn't mean there couldn't be some other type of major event. I'm also reluctant to take the 2012 apocalypse too seriously just because of how many people have been wrong about when the world was going to end in the past. Some say 2012 is just a spiritual Y2K (meaning theres a big buildup to it, but then nothing happens). But this isn't like Y2K. Y2K only became a notorious apocalyptic scenario in the years prior to the year 2000. The 2012 prophecies are unique in that many people from different parts of the world with different religious beliefs have predicted an end of something around the year 2012 for thousands of years of now. So what really is the big deal about 2012? And what will Peter the Roman have to do with it?
-------------------------
Update 02/12/2013

2012 has come and gone, but the news has reported that Pope Benedict XVI will be resigning his position, and people are already speculating about who the new Pope could be.  Interestingly enough, one of the potential candidates is named Peter!

Update 2:

 A new Pope has been elected and he took the name of Francis.  His given name is not Peter or a variation thereof either.  So it looks like Malachy's prophecy is a bust (no surprises there though).

Reality that you can't see

Reality is only what your mind perceives it to be. What you consider to be existence occurs in your mind. Your eyes don't really see, they just transmit light signals to your brain. Your ears don't really hear, they just transmit sound waves into your brain. Everything is interpreted in your brain. What's interesting is that our view of reality can be shaped by what our mind is told to think. For instance, hypnotists can hypnotize people and tell them that upon waking up, they won't be able to see someone. In some cases, the hypnotist will tell them they won't be able to see him/her (the hypnotist). Here is an example:

Here is another example. In this one, the girl not only seems to think the hypnotist is invisible, he has also convinced her that a stuffed monkey is alive and talking to her.



In one case I've heard about, a hypnotist told a man that his daughter would be invisible. When he woke up, he not only couldn't see his daughter standing in front of him, but he could read the inscription on a watch being held behind her back. Pretty amazing huh? Like I said in my recent article A Quest for Truth, the subconscious mind will believe whatever it is told. If it is told that someone is invisible, then the mind will no longer process the light waves bouncing off that person. Instead, it will process the light waves coming behind that person. So the reality around you does exist, but reality as you know it is only how your mind perceives it. So the next time you want a break from reality, just remember, the reality you think you know is all in how your mind perceives it anyways!

Does Reincarnation Occur?

Trying to find a definitive answer to the question of whether reincarnation really occurs is no easy task. In eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism the belief in reincarnation is an accepted part of the faith. Western religions don't say much about it though it seems. The Bible seems to indicate that there isn't any reincarnation:

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement. - Hebrews 9:27

But religious beliefs aside, is there any evidence of reincarnation? There actually may be. Some hypnotists have regressed people far enough back into their past that they remember a life prior to being born. Some skeptics have dismissed these claims, saying that the hypnotists have lead them on. But in another type of phenomena, there is no hypnotist to lead anyone on. There are numerous documented cases of children remembering a past life. I remember one particular instance documented on TV years ago where a small child living somewhere in the East (I think it was India, but I can't remember for sure) where belief in reincarnation is the norm remembered details of another man's life. His memories were spontaneous and were not prompted by anyone. He was able to tell his parents who he had been, where he was from, and how he died. They went to meet the family of the man he claimed to remember being, and even the dead man's family were convinced the boy was the reincarnation of their family member. What really made it interesting was that the boy had two birthmarks on his head that corresponded with the entry and exit wounds of the bullet that went through the head of the man he remembered being.

The case of that boy isn't an isolated incident though. Dr. Ian Stevenson, a biochemist and professor of psychiatry investigated the phenomena of children spontaneously remembering past lives for 40 years and documented thousands of such cases. If you search the Internet, you can probably find numerous examples of such phenomena. Here is one I came across yesterday that a Fox affiliate reported about:

What I thought was unusual about that case was how old the kid was. Typically children who spontaneously remember a past life remember it when they are very young and just learning to talk. Once they get older, they tend to forget about it. So are these cases documented proof of reincarnation? It's hard to say.

Perhaps the lives these children remember aren't literally lives that they have previously lived. Maybe the souls of these dead people have merely formed a close bond with a living person and the living person catches glimpses of the dead person's life because of it. Perhaps the phenomena is similar to a demonic possession, except it is not a demon doing the possessing. Some Christians who believe in reincarnation despite the Bible's relative silence on the subject (besides that one passage in Hebrews I mentioned earlier) have attempted to validate the belief using the case of John the Baptist. In the book of Luke, John's father Zechariah is visited by an angel of the Lord who tells him that his son (John the Baptist) would go before the Lord in the "spirit and power of Elijah". Elijah was an Old Testament prophet who was prophesied to return before the great and terrible day of the Lord (Malachi 4:5). Jesus even said that John the Baptist could have been the prophesied return of Elijah if the people were willing to accept it (the people weren't willing to accept it though). But I don't really think these particular passages are pointing to the literal reincarnation of Elijah. For one, Elijah never died in scripture. He was carried away into heaven in a chariot of fire. I suppose it's possible he could have died at some point after being carried into heaven, but we are never told that if that is the case. I think the passage in Luke about John going before the Lord in the "spirit and power of Elijah" probably just means that John the Baptist would be following the same role Elijah would have followed. But, on the other hand, maybe the passage indicates what I have theorized in this article; maybe the spirit of Elijah formed a bond with John the Baptist and guided John in his work.

Now someone may say I'm just being biased and trying to make the evidence supporting reincarnation fit what I already believe about it. And maybe I am. But what if I'm right? Maybe the Buddhists and Hindus have merely misinterpreted the soul of a dead person bonding with a living person as being a reincarnation of that dead person. Assuming for a moment I am right, it would be easy to see how people could misinterpret the evidence and form a belief that people are reincarnated into new lives based on that misinterpreted evidence. Perhaps one day we'll all know what the answer to this mystery is though.

A Quest for Truth

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. (1 Corinthians 14:33)

So why are the mysteries of life so confusing? The simple answer to that is because the devil seeks to confuse us. He did it in the beginning with Adam and Eve and has been doing it ever since. But I think the answer can go deeper than that too. I think the truth is that we are hard wired to believe anything we hear. We automatically assume everything we hear is true - subconsciously. The conscious mind is what questions the things we hear. If you don't believe me just observe a hypnotist perform hypnosis on someone. With the conscious mind out of the way, the hypnotist is able to tell the hypnotized person pretty much anything and the hypnotized person will believe it or do it. A good example of this involves a recent case of a woman in Great Britain who was told under hypnosis she had gastric bypass surgery. She was actually able to remember having the surgery performed despite the fact that she never really had the surgery performed! In addition to remembering the surgery she also lost "4 stone" because of it (I think that's around 50 pounds or so). Consciously she knows that she never had the surgery performed, yet she still remembers it and still lost weight because of it. So the subconscious mind is obviously stronger than the conscious mind and, despite the fact that the subconscious mind never sleeps and is aware of every minor little detail we observe and hear, it doesn't seem to be capable of understanding what a lie is.

If you want more evidence just observe how a very small child will believe whatever its parents tells them. A small child doesn't understand the necessity to question what its told, so it will believe whatever it is told. You can tell them there's a Santa Claus, a Tooth Fairy, an Easter Bunny or whatever, and they just assume its true. They don't realize until they get older that they need to question what they hear. So basically the knowledge that we need to question what we hear is a learned trait. The irony is that if people didn't lie, then we wouldn't need to bother questioning anything. Basically humanity is being held back because some people have the desire to lie to get ahead. Because we know that people have the potential to lie, we automatically assume we have to question some of the things we hear. Imagine how much further we could get if we weren't so busy questioning everything we hear? If everyone just told the truth and everyone knew they could trust what they hear, everyone could unite together and combine their knowledge for the advancement of humanity. Having to question what we hear and in some cases go back and research the basis for someone's claims just slows the process down and keeps people divided.

So what started with the serpent deceiving Adam and Eve snowballed into something much bigger. Now we have so many different beliefs and so many different opinions on so many different subjects that the whole world is pretty much confused about everything. An entire religion could start as one man's lies and ultimately lead to thousands or millions of followers. Basically it starts by one man saying something and then someone else assuming he is telling the truth. That person (or those persons) then tells their friends and family, who assume they can trust what they are being told (which is really only a lie that was assumed to be true getting repeated). Once enough people believe something to be true, then they assume it is an established fact. Once the conscious mind believes something to be true though, then trying to convince a person otherwise can be difficult. The subconscious is already totally convinced, so if the conscious mind doesn't question what it hears, then it is very difficult to make progress in convincing that person what they believe is a lie. So the question process can work in reverse too because if a person already believes one thing to be true, then they question the validity of anything they hear that contradicts that. Part of the trouble with this is that people get so firmly rooted in what they believe, when someone else questions what they believe then they feel the need to seek out evidence to "prove" it. What usually happens though is that when seeking evidence for a belief, they let what they already believe shape the evidence they find, instead of letting the evidence shape what they believe. The truth is, many things are open to interpretation. While doing some research for a book I am writing, I read in a book how some scientists were able to "prove" the Earth was much younger than the 4.5 billion year old stuff that you usually hear about by using radiometric dating. Yes...the same radiometric dating that supposedly "proves" that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old can also "prove" that the Earth is only thousands of years old. How can that be, you may ask? Well what most people don't know is that radiometric dating evidence is based on theoretical concepts. Most scientists adhere to the idea that the "the present is the key to the past", which is based on a concept known as "Uniformitarianism". Basically it is the assumption that all natural processes have always been the same and always happened the same way and can be measured in the same way. Prior to Uniformitarianism people believed in "Catastrophism", which pretty much means the opposite - natural processes haven't always been the same. So for instance, if you assume an event such as the Great Flood to be true, then that throws the dates for what is below the flood period line way off because such a catastrophic event "contaminates" the ground. In other words, it disrupts the natural processes. A volcanic eruption can have a similar effect. Volcanic rock from a volcano that was known to have erupted say, a hundred years ago, can be dated to being millions of years old if you assume that the natural processes have not been contaminated (Uniformitarianism). The intense heat of the eruption disrupts the natural processes though, which is what makes the dates wrong. But if the dates can be wrong in one spot, then they can be wrong anywhere.

So what do we have here in this case? Basically you have Darwinists on one side who have invented a theoretical concept that allows them to interpret the evidence to mean that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, which would fit their belief that species evolved over incredibly long periods of time. On the other side you have people who interpret the same evidence differently based on the idea that natural processes haven't always been the same. So in other words, the evidence is only as good as what you interpret it to be, and generally most people interpret the evidence based on what they already believe.

I think even as adults a lot people still retain a little bit of that childlike assumption that whatever they hear is true. Although adults know to question things, typically they find it easy to believe anything they hear that matches what they already believe. They are also more likely to believe what they hear based on how its presented to them. If someone they trust tells them something, typically they will believe it even though it may be that the person they trust has merely repeated something told to them that they assumed to be true, but isn't. They are also more likely to believe something they hear from a news reporter they trust or if information is presented to them in a professional manner (such as a documentary film or book). But, I think we all know that reporters, documentaries, and books can be wrong or lie, yet, we typically find it easy to believe what is said if it matches what we already think or don't have a reason to question it.

I guess the reason I decided to write this is because I was thinking idealistically today. Imagine a world with no lies. A world where everything you knew was the truth. No one would be confused and everyone would be united. But because some people throughout history have decided to take advantage of the human inclination to believe that whatever they hear is true for their own benefit, we are left with a world of confused people who fight amongst themselves instead of coming together in peace and truth for the betterment of the human race.

July 7 Solar Flare

When I posted my new article on crop circles yesterday I didn't expect to be posting a new one today with new information regarding something I mentioned in that article. In yesterday's article I mentioned that one of this years crop circles predicted a solar storm for July 7 (which just so happened to be yesterday), and lo and behold, there apparently was a solar storm on July 7. And this comes to light just a few days after a massive sunspot around a 100 times larger than the Earth appeared on the sun.

This doesn't necessarily prove the crop circle was accurate though. Science may not be able to predict solar flares and sunspots ahead of time, but periods of solar activity such as the 11 year sunspot cycle can be predicted. We are currently in a period of increased solar activity that will be peaking around 2012. In other words, its easy to predict something that already has a good chance of occurring.

So it may not be smoking gun proof of the predictive power of crop circles, it's still interesting enough to make note of.

The Crop Circle Enigma

I guess I would say I'm on the fence about the whole crop circle phenomena. I know hoaxers have made them before using ropes and boards. And there's many people that would have you believe that that is all there is to it period. But it's not quite that simple. Years ago I used to wonder why anyone would bother taking new crop circles seriously, but then I learned that not all crop circles are so cut and dry. Or flattened and dry, maybe I should say.

Some crop circles seem to elaborate to have been created overnight, but if you had enough people involved, it wouldn't be impossible. But there are some crop circles that also have some mysterious properties that men with boards wouldn't be able to duplicate overnight. . .if at all. Here are some examples of those mysterious properties:

• Weaving - Some crop circles have plants that hadn't merely just been flattened, but also had plants that were weaved together. Merely flattening crops with a board does not weave them together.
• Elongated nodes and unbendable plants- In some crop circles the nodes of crops are bent, but remain undamaged. When hoaxers flatten crops, the nodes get damaged. But there are others where the nodes are elongated and bent without being damaged. Take a look at figure 1 in this article to see an example. Another example would be canola that has been bent without being damaged. Canola has a consistency like celery, therefore, if you try to bend it, it cracks. But canola stalks bent at 90 degrees without cracking have been found before. This is something a hoaxer could not duplicate.
• Increased size - A former employee of Los Alamos National Laboratories, Eltjo H. Haselhoff, Ph.D., noted that plant stems inside some crop circles had increased in diameter, possibly caused by intense heat.
• Effects on electronic equipment - Watches, mobile phones, and other electronic equipment have been known to fail at some crop circles. Compasses have even been said to spin out of control. This may be caused by increased electromagnetic (EM) radiation recorded at some crop circles. The EM radiation has been known to be ten times the normal radiation level of a normal field. In some cases, people or animals that entered the formation experienced nausea, headaches, and other ill effects. The EM radiation may be to blame for this too.

I've also seen pictures of crop circles that were messier than others. The dimensions of the formation may have been perfect or near perfect, but if you paid closer attention and looked within the formation at the flattened crops themselves, they appeared to have just been trampled somewhat haphazardly and gave it a messy appearance, whereas others seemed to have been flattened in a smooth, flowing pattern.

Crop circles only came into the public consciousness during the last few decades and that's probably because crop circles only became a common occurrence during the last few decades. There is some evidence indicating earlier instances of crop circles prior to the 1970's, but the cases are few and far between. Some people have compared crop circles to fairy rings, but there is little to compare between the two. Fairy rings are smaller and much less elaborate. Fairy rings are said to be a naturally occurring phenomena that are caused by fungi. Fairy rings typically occur in forested areas, grasslands, or range lands. The name is a reference to older folk beliefs that stated the fairy rings were where fairies or elves gathered to dance.

The explanations for crop circles vary widely too. There are many of course who still persistently claim it's all just a hoax. Some people say its aliens. Others say it's the military (possibly shooting some sort of aerial microwave at the ground). Some people think the earth itself is somehow causing it. I wouldn't be surprised if some people thought it was elves and fairies. One of the more interesting explanations is that they are caused by "balls of light". The explanations as to what these balls of light are may vary, but here is a video clip allegedly showing the balls of light forming a crop circle in the process:

That video may or may not be a hoax. I don't know. Here is a clip from some sort of documentary that shows a ball of light flying around too though:

It would be interesting to know just how many really are hoaxes. Even most people that research the alternative explanations on the subject admit that most of the formations are probably hoaxes. Although they appear all over the world, the most common place for them to appear is in England. This could indicate that most of them are created by a localized set of hoaxers. Back in 1991, Doug Bower and Dave Chorley from Southampton, England announced that they had been creating crop circles with planks and ropes. Once it became clear that hoaxers had been making them, most people just passed the phenomena off as nothing more than a bunch of hoaxes period. But in light of other information about them, I sometimes wonder if the announcement of the hoaxes was purposely intended to distract people from the phenomena. Or at the very least, the hoaxers may have just intended to show that the crop circles could be hoaxed.

I was inspired to write this article today because I came across an article that claimed one of this year's crop circle formations that looks like a jellyfish is actually more than just a depiction of a jellyfish. The article states that crop circle analysts discovered that the jellyfish actually predicted a solar storm that would be occurring today, July 7th. The article goes into more detail explaining how the jellyfish depiction predicts the solar storm. But the article's claims of a crop circle predicting a solar storm reminded me of another article I read recently about a crop circle depicting a phoenix rising. That article claimed that investigators were claiming that the Phoenix rising was a reference to alleged cataclysmic event or great awakening that is said will occur on December 21, 2012. It's made all the more interesting if you take into consideration this article's claims that crop circles have been depicting solar symbols for years. Could they be some sort of warning of major solar activity? And if so, who is warning us? One interesting crop circle that was formed in England back in August 2001 may provide evidence as to who. The crop circle appeared to be a response to the "Arecibo message", which was a frequency modulated radio wave beamed into space by the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) back in 1974 that contained a brief description of our civilization encoded in binary. The August 2001 formation near the Chilbolton radio telescope in England appeared to be a possible response. To learn more about the Arecibo message and Chilbolton radio telescope crop circle, go here.

So are they all hoaxes or are some of them real? Some of them may be real, but the trouble is, trying to figure out what is real and what isn't could be difficult and time consuming. Even most of the people interested in the subject would hardly have time to sort them all out. If the real ones are some sort of message from aliens, or angels, or fairies, or balls of light, or the earth itself, I'm afraid the message is largely falling on deaf ears (or blind eyes).