[
Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #53]
When looking at such a prediction, it's important to differentiate between a prediction that would happen only in the case that some crucial contentious element is correct, and one that would happen anyway.
If I say that one day, a cat will have kittens, and that proves some greater overarching belief system of mine correct, I would need a LOT of those, because cats have kittens anyway.
The UN might go after all religions anyway, because religion(s) is a force of strife, and when people disagree and both sides are religious, there's just going to be a physical fight because nobody has the guts to dare tell either side that it might be wrong. We have radical Muslims for example who think they can and should hurt and kill people because those people they hurt and kill are infidels and that makes it not only okay, but righteous. And nobody really wants to address it because to do so, we'd have to have a conversation about whether religion is okay, and nobody wants to have that conversation. The further aside people have to walk for religions, the more they have to sacrifice, the more upset they're going to get and something is going to break,
anyway.
Now if we have a continuation of what seems to already be happening which is that despite Christians being currently peaceful - extremely peaceful as far as religions go - they alone are persecuted, that's much more evidence that some process not explained by the body of mundane accepted knowledge is at play. And all else equal it's not some sort of logical sin to pick the person's explanation who all along believed in some such process, and based on that, said it was going to happen.
TL;DR: If the prediction said that they're going to come for
Christians, not only would that be more precise, it would be more predictive, more accurate imo, and more apt to describe an event that would happen if there really were supernatural forces described in the Bible in play.
