Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

That is the definition! Google it.

I did. You got that from Wikipedia, did you not? If not, then where?

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you want a great example of the "argumentum ad populum" you could use many quotes by liberals with respect to AGW, their formula essentially taking this form: "The consensus of scientists" or the "consensus of the scientific community", etc.

That's not the "essential" parts. You left out the essential parts. "Here's the data. Here are our calculations."

When you've examined the data and made you own calculations get back to me.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Darby inverted iit in the 19 th century. What did Christians believe up until Darby?

https://www.quora.com/Do-any-Christi...ll-ever-happen

....Despite the fact that dispensationalism is not accepted by any of the world's major Christian Traditions (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and Protestantism), because dispensationalism is popular among a vocal subsection of American Fundamentalist Evangelicals -- who claim to speak for all of Christianity -- "the Rapture" is often presented as a mainstream Christian belief by the mass media, who often confuse Fundamentalism with historic mainstream Christianity. This facile acceptance of Fundamentalist Evangelical claims to be "the real Christians" may be due to a general ignorance in the media to the actual historic teachings of global Christianity.



BTWE, the only other religions to accept anything like it are fundamentalist Muslims. Literal minded believers are birds of the same feather, no matter their "house" brand.

I apologize to bpiets for mangling his name.

No Darby did not invent it. Darby popularized it. The real inventors were three Jesuit priests centuries earlier.

The origin of this theory can be traced to three Jesuit priests; (1) Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), (2) Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) one of the best known Jesuit apologists, who promoted similar theories to Ribera in his published work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time, and (3) Manuel Lacunza (1731–1801). The writings of Ribera and Bellarmine, which contain the precedence upon which the theory of Dispensationalism is founded, were originally written to counteract the Protestant reformers’ interpretation of the Book of the Revelation which, according to the reformers, exposed the Pope as Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon.

https://fortheloveofhistruth.com/201...ensationalism/

In other words the invention of this very complex, elaborate and confusing system of eschatology did not occur in a spiritual or theological vacuum. It was initially invented by these Jesuits as a Catholic Church defense against the moral-spiritual implications of other systems of eschatology and how those adherents interpreted Revelations.. The RCC didn't take kindly to being characterized as the "whore of Babylon" or the pope being characterized as the antichrist, etc.

Historically, the orthodox Christian church has largely held to Amillennialism, Historical Premillennialism (which the RCC radicalized to become Dispensationalism), Preterism, Partial Preterism or Postmillennialism, this latter system probably being the least popular of all over the centuries.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I did. You got that from Wikipedia, did you not? If not, then where?

The first thing that popped up on the screen how can you miss it?

https://www.google.com/search?client....0.db0RmE5d0TE

That's not the "essential" parts. You left out the essential parts. "Here's the data. Here are our calculations."

When you've examined the data and made you own calculations get back to me.

It the only essential part of the number one talking point often used by liberal politicians. Therefore, they are guilty.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No Darby did not invent it. Darby popularized it. The real inventors were three Jesuit priests centuries earlier.

From Christianity Today stating Premillennialism was it's predecessor. And Darby did certainly more than jut popularize an existing branch of Christianity.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/his...alist-era.html

Dispensational Premillennialism: The Dispensationalist Era

Yet by 1875 a new kind of premillennialism called dispensationalism began to spread. Given the embarrassing recent history of premillennialism in the United States (see the story of the Millerites, page 31), its revival was nothing less than amazing.

The new premillennialism came to the United States following the Civil War, after flourishing in Britain among the Plymouth Brethren. One of the Brethren's most gifted teachers was John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), a former priest in the Anglican Church of Ireland, who developed a new variety of futurist premillennialism. He called it dispensationalism, after the division of history into dispensations or eras.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

From Christianity Today stating Premillennialism was it's predecessor. And Darby did certainly more than jut popularize an existing branch of Christianity.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/his...alist-era.html

Dispensational Premillennialism: The Dispensationalist Era

Yet by 1875 a new kind of premillennialism called dispensationalism began to spread. Given the embarrassing recent history of premillennialism in the United States (see the story of the Millerites, page 31), its revival was nothing less than amazing.

The new premillennialism came to the United States following the Civil War, after flourishing in Britain among the Plymouth Brethren. One of the Brethren's most gifted teachers was John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), a former priest in the Anglican Church of Ireland, who developed a new variety of futurist premillennialism. He called it dispensationalism, after the division of history into dispensations or eras.

I don't subscribe to Christianity Today. So, I can't read the rest of the article. Tell us, therefore, just all the great things Darby did for Dispensationalism -- a system of eschatology he did not invent.

And "evangelical" publications like Christianity Today would not be quick to reveal the true sources of Dispesationalism, since it is still to this day the most widely accepted system of eschatology in Protestantism. Most Protestants don't know who really developed Dispensationalism and many publications, and preachers and teachers within the church want to keep it that way, lest Dispensationalism should fall out of favor with "laity" once they find out where its true roots are found. All Darby did was borrow the ideas from those Jesuits, revise them slightly and popularize them. He is often called the "Father of Dispensationalism" but that is not an historically accurate characterization of him. Darby was more of a "plagiarist" than anything else.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The first thing that popped up on the screen ...

You missed this part: "The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. ..."

And like I said, you got it from Wikipedia.

I recommend you not use Google as your search engine.

Originally Posted by boxcar

It the only essential part of the number one talking point often used by liberal politicians.

I'm a scientist, not a politician. If you can't do the math then that's not my problem.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You missed this part: "The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. ..."

And like I said, you got it from Wikipedia.

I recommend you not use Google as your search engine.


I'm a scientist, not a politician. If you can't do the math then that's not my problem.

I did not get it from Wikipedia.

And give your math solution to the politicians who incessantly claim that AGW is either a "scientific consensus" or "settled science".

You don't like me using Google as my search engine? Tough!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I did not get it from Wikipedia.

I clicked on your google link and "The first thing that popped up on the screen" was a link to Wikipedia. You may not have gotten it directly from Wikipedia but it was channeled to you from Wikipedia through Google.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And give your math solution to the politicians who incessantly claim that AGW is either a "scientific consensus" or "settled science".

Should I not also give it to the politicians who incessantly claim that AGW is a hoax?

Originally Posted by boxcar

You don't like me using Google as my search engine? Tough!

Use whatever search engine you want. Just some friendly advice.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I clicked on your google link and "The first thing that popped up on the screen" was a link to Wikipedia. You may not have gotten it directly from Wikipedia but it was channeled to you from Wikipedia through Google.

Should I not also give it to the politicians who incessantly claim that AGW is a hoax?

Use whatever search engine you want. Just some friendly advice.

No you don't have to give that advice to anyone who sees AGW for the hoax that it is. Real scientists would never claim that any science is settled or appeal to a scientific consensus as though that proved AGW is fact. This isn't what real science is about. In fact, real scientists are skeptics through and through because they realize that they are but one experiment away from falsifying what they thought they knew. In fact, Einstein expressed this idea very poignantly when he said:

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong

And Nobel-prize winning theoretical physicist Dr. Richard Feynman stressed how critically important experiments are when he said:

In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess or what his name is -- if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.

I strongly suspect that the falsifying of AGW data over the years was due to experiments blowing holes in scientists' guesses (or presuppositions). Just sayin'...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No you don't have to give that advice ...

Advice? I was talking about data and math.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Real scientists would never claim that any science is settled or appeal to a scientific consensus as though that proved AGW is fact. This isn't what real science is about. In fact, real scientists are skeptics through and through because they realize that they are but one experiment away from falsifying what they thought they knew. In fact, Einstein expressed this idea very poignantly when he said:

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong

But, in the 102 years since Einstein published, no experiment, and there have been many, has proven him wrong. The same goes for Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pasteur, Salk, et al. Meanwhile, acting on the models they developed, we have global positioning systems, computers, high definition television, self driving cars, CAT scans, the "gadget" that ended WWII, vaccines, sanitation, etc. It is highly doubtful that Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pasteur, Salk will ever be proven wrong.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I strongly suspect that the falsifying ...

What data was falsified?

Originally Posted by boxcar

... of AGW data over the years was due to experiments blowing holes in scientists' guesses (or presuppositions). Just sayin'...

You are talking about things you know nothing about.

Meanwhile the system of locks designed to prevent the flooding of Venice is going online this year, and the Port of New York is looking at installing a similar system. And an entire nation in the Indian Ocean is being evacuated as sea levels rise. Plus the state of Swampland may be under water in your lifetime.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And "evangelical" publications like Christianity Today would not be quick to reveal the true sources of Dispesationalism, since it is still to this day the most widely accepted system of eschatology in Protestantism.

You ared distracting rom my main criticism of the rapture. It is not accepted by most Christians, and figures a literal minded thinker liker you would take Revelations literally.

[ultracapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

It's no great tragedy if Hannibal never existed...and the same could be said of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great...and every other "great" man whom history has deemed "significant" and worthy of study and remembrance. These were all mere mortals...who never claimed to be anything else. But Jesus comes advertised as the God-man who "defeated death"...and upon whose shoulders untold billions of people through the ages have placed their hopes for a fortuitous afterlife. If Jesus never existed -- or if he existed merely as a rabbi who led a small group of disciples (which is what I, personally, happen to believe) -- then this means that a great hoax has been perpetuated on billions and billions of people...who continue to be misled to this day...and will likely be misled for eons to come. And that makes for a great tragedy indeed.

"All ages can testify enough how profitable that fable of Christ has been to us and our company"

"Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it"

-Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici (Pope Leo X)

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Advice? I was talking about data and math.

But, in the 102 years since Einstein published, no experiment, and there have been many, has proven him wrong. The same goes for Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pasteur, Salk, et al. Meanwhile, acting on the models they developed, we have global positioning systems, computers, high definition television, self driving cars, CAT scans, the "gadget" that ended WWII, vaccines, sanitation, etc. It is highly doubtful that Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pasteur, Salk will ever be proven wrong.

What data was falsified?

You are talking about things you know nothing about.

Meanwhile the system of locks designed to prevent the flooding of Venice is going online this year, and the Port of New York is looking at installing a similar system. And an entire nation in the Indian Ocean is being evacuated as sea levels rise. Plus the state of Swampland may be under water in your lifetime.

But Einstein wouldn't have said "but" after all these years. He would have still thought that he and all other scientists were just one experiment away from being proved wrong.

Look up ClimateGate to see how the data was fudged, manipulated etc. to fit the doomsday-sayers' presuppositions.

After they install the locks in NYC, let me know when they find fish swimming in downtown Noo Yawk. I have guys down here keeping a close eye on the streets of downtown Miami.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You ared distracting rom my main criticism of the rapture. It is not accepted by most Christians, and figures a literal minded thinker liker you would take Revelations literally.

Oh...so you've shifted the goal posts away from an entire system of eschatology to one part of it.

For your info the rapture is held by virtually all bible-believing. evangelical Christians, regardless of their eschatology. Only the apostates or heretics in the church don't believe in the rapture. And those who don't believe in the rapture very likely don't believe in the Second Coming either. It's extremely difficult to not believe in one and yet believe in the other due to insurmountable theological problems that would arise from the denial of either.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But Einstein wouldn't have said "but" after all these years. He would have still thought that he and all other scientists were just one experiment away from being proved wrong.

Provided that he was wrong. If he was right no experiment will ever prove him wrong. Furthermore he would welcome such a finding. He valued truth.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Look up ClimateGate to see how the data was fudged, manipulated etc. to fit the doomsday-sayers' presuppositions.

The so-called ClimateGate controversy has been thoroughly debunked. Google it.

Exactly how was the data "fudged"?

Originally Posted by boxcar

After they install the locks in NYC, let me know when they find fish swimming in downtown Noo Yawk.

Don't you get it. The locks are to keep the fish out of downtown New York. Although it may take fish swimming up Broadway before the politicians pony up the money.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have guys down here keeping a close eye on the streets of downtown Miami.

Make sure they are not watching Haulover Beach instead.