Defenders of Dispensational Premillennialism in the 21st Century
This group will be created to help those who will be living in the 21st century and will be need to defend Dispensational Premillennialism in the 21st Century. Will we need to learn how to defend Premillennialism, Futurism, Israel/Church Distinction. The Nature of the Church in this dispensation, The nature and purpose of the tribulation period, The Doctrine of Imminency, The necessity of an Internval between his coming for the Church and his landing in Jerusalem, The Pre-trib Rapture and why it is a practical motivation for Godly living.
This group has been inactive for a while, but it has the potential to be a great place to learn about Premillennial Dispensationalism. Question: "What is dispensational premillennialism / premillennial dispensationalism?" http://www.gotquestions.org/dispensational-premillennialism.html
What is dispensational premillennialism / premillennial dispensationalism?
www.gotquestions.org
How do you understand the oracles of God to respond to this attack on Dispensationalism, and on the pretrib rapture that is based on Dispensationalist understanding of the scriptures? 1 Peter 4:11
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. // Here is the onslaught attacking the roots of Dispensationalism and the "corrupted Catholic futuristic interpretation of the Bible:"-- http://www.facebook.com/notes/susan-weeks/american-eschatology-john-nelson-darby-rockefeller-and-theosophy-is-there-a-conn/195961910496413 // The Coming of the Messiah and the Glory of His Majesty - http://www.birthpangs.org/articles/prophetic/lacunza-intro.html // Manuel Lacunza - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Lacunza // Scott Johnson is teaching in this series at http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?tag=nelson-darby -- that the books that Darby referred to and built upon were written by corrupt Jesuit liars, one of which was Manuel Lacunza. He assumed a Jewish name and pretended to be a Jewish Rabbi. Why would a Jesuit priest write as a Jewish Rabbi, Scott Johnson asks. Appearing as a Jew among Jews, a Jewish Rabbit who had "accepted Christ as his Saviour..."-- Maintaining that facade in his writing. // Susan Weeks writes:
"To me, it adds credibility to the idea that it is not just a false doctrine--it is a spell. A false doctrine with Satanic 'anointing' and/or demonic spirits of false teaching attached. I believe to free most people from it will take more than just logic and reason--it will probably require prayer and fasting.
Here are the links to the four part audio series that it came from:
Very detailed, four part teaching on the (false) Pre-Trib Rapture doctrine
(including its Jesuit origin, layering of deception, etc.)
I guess the pressing question I have is who will be left to defend pretribulationalism after the pretribers have all been secretly raptured? Who will still be around to defend the true Pre-Trib Rapture doctrine (pace the false, demonic, Jesuitical Pre-Trib Rapture doctrine) during the Great Tribulation? Should we design an interactive AI program to stand in the breach?
http://www.alankurschner.com/2012/05/23/first-of-the-left-behind-series-about-to-get-an-expensive-remake/
ReplyDeleteWhy would there be a need to? Those in the tribulation would already have proof.
ReplyDeleteMSC, the "pretribulation Rapture" being the proof? Well, some pre-tribulationists have argued that the missing people in the world might be used by the Anti-Christ to rally and unite the rest of the world to himself against the hostile mass alien abduction that just happened (i.e. the rapture). So, hypothetically, there would still be people (or AI program like Skynet [grin]) needed to defend pretribulationism. FYI, I haven't been a pretribber in like 15 years.
DeleteSo the Rapture is not going to happen? Shucks, I was counting on getting lots of free stuff, although I'd probably have to walk a long way to find a raptured person's home from here in Vienna anyway. I guess it's just as well.
ReplyDeletezilch said:
Delete"So the Rapture is not going to happen? Shucks, I was counting on getting lots of free stuff, although I'd probably have to walk a long way to find a raptured person's home from here in Vienna anyway. I guess it's just as well."
Although homes and goods might be passed onto nonbelieving family members or whatever, it makes perfect sense that you'd want break into a home and steal stuff given your "imaginary foundations" for morality, as I pointed out elsewhere.
rocking said:
ReplyDelete[...] it makes perfect sense that you'd want break into a home and steal stuff given your "imaginary foundations" for morality, as I pointed out elsewhere.
You're the one with "imaginary foundations" for morality, as far as I can see- at least as far as the supernatural part of the foundation goes. As I also said elsewhere, I don't need a foundation for morals, imaginary or otherwise. I'll just take the morals neat- they work to produce the kind of society most people want to live in: peaceful, free of unnecessary want and pain, and furthering life. Of course I don't have any illusions about my morals creating the best possible society: but no one else's, including those of all religions, have done so either. I just do the best I can, just like everyone else.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
zilch said:
Delete"You're the one with 'imaginary foundations' for morality"
Nice comeback.
"as far as I can see- at least as far as the supernatural part of the foundation goes"
An assertion without an argument.
"I don't need a foundation for morals, imaginary or otherwise. I'll just take the morals neat- they work to produce the kind of society most people want to live in: peaceful, free of unnecessary want and pain, and furthering life."
This reflects your 21st century Western values more than, say, warrior cultures and societies like the Mongols or Huns or Romans or Spartans.
"Of course I don't have any illusions about my morals creating the best possible society:"
I didn't ask you about "creating the best possible society."
"but no one else's, including those of all religions, have done so either."
I might agree with you...had you made an actual argument rather than given us more of your opinions.
"I just do the best I can, just like everyone else."
Tell that to Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. Or the Mexican drug lord El Loco.
rocking- you are making the "assertion without an argument" here. In any rational world, the burden of proof is on the one claiming the existence of the supernatural.
ReplyDeleteThis reflects your 21st century Western values more than, say, warrior cultures and societies like the Mongols or Huns or Romans or Spartans.
Or warrior cultures such as the Israelites. We've come a long way since then.
Tell that to Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. Or the Mexican drug lord El Loco.
Does atheism stop people from being sociopaths? No. Does Christianity? Look at murder rates in the US compared to Japan or Sweden. True, religiosity is not the only factor here; but it's obvious that religion doesn't do a demonstrably better job of curbing violence than atheism.
zilch said:
Delete"the burden of proof is on the one claiming the existence of the supernatural."
Rather than asserting "the burden of proof is on the one claiming the existence of the supernatural," why don't you explain why you think so? After all, an agnostic could very well say both the naturalist and supernaturalist positions share a burden of proof. Take the existence of God. Why isn't agnosticism the default position?
"Or warrior cultures such as the Israelites. We've come a long way since then."
Even if I agree, it doesn't undermine my point against yours. You're just supplying me with another example.
Also, why should "come a long way" necessarily indicate moral improvement? For one thing, it'd assume there's a universal moral standard everyone should abide by (and that our society's moral standards are better than those of the ancient Israelites). But what's your basis for this moral standard? Keeping this in mind, people might want to check out our little tete-a-tete in a previous thread.
"Does atheism stop people from being sociopaths? No. Does Christianity? Look at murder rates in the US compared to Japan or Sweden. True, religiosity is not the only factor here; but it's obvious that religion doesn't do a demonstrably better job of curbing violence than atheism."
As far as "sociopaths" in secular places, it's reported Sweden is first in the EU for rape, whereas Japan has one of the world's highest suicide rates.
If you aim to be fair, then you'd need to breakdown the US homicide stats by demographics for starters.
rocking- you say:
ReplyDeleteRather than asserting "the burden of proof is on the one claiming the existence of the supernatural," why don't you explain why you think so? After all, an agnostic could very well say both the naturalist and supernaturalist positions share a burden of proof. Take the existence of God. Why isn't agnosticism the default position?
First of all, I should point out that the "burden of proof" is not a law of logic, but simply pragmatism: it's easier to demonstrate that something particular exists (if it does) than that it doesn't exist (we can't search the entire Universe), so generally someone who claims that something exists is considered to have the burden of proof. You claim God exists- you have the burden of proof.
Also, why should "come a long way" necessarily indicate moral improvement? For one thing, it'd assume there's a universal moral standard everyone should abide by (and that our society's moral standards are better than those of the ancient Israelites). But what's your basis for this moral standard?
What's yours, rocking? Do you think it's okay to beat your slaves if they don't die within three days? If not, why not?
As far as "sociopaths" in secular places, it's reported Sweden is first in the EU for rape, whereas Japan has one of the world's highest suicide rates.
As I'm sure you know, Sweden is still way behind the US on rape. And as regrettable as suicide is, I wouldn't call suicides "sociopaths" the way rapists and murderers are. Would you?
If you aim to be fair, then you'd need to breakdown the US homicide stats by demographics for starters.
I do aim to be fair, and I did read the link, but there's nothing there about the breakdown according to religion, which is what we're talking about here. As far as I know, atheists are underrepresented in American prisons, so I don't see how demographics helps your argument.
zilch said:
Delete"it's easier to demonstrate that something particular exists (if it does) than that it doesn't exist (we can't search the entire Universe), so generally someone who claims that something exists is considered to have the burden of proof. You claim God exists- you have the burden of proof."
Say Zac claims there is a real literal tree outside his window. Say Zac claims other human beings really exist. Say Zac claims the external world truly exists in reality. These are positive claims that "something exists." According to your argument Zac would have the burden of proof in making each of these claims.
However, Zac could be a brain in a vat or trapped in the Matrix, and merely imaging the external world is real, a real tree exists outside his window, other human beings are real, etc. All he senses and experiences could be figments of his imagination or part of a complex and elaborate virtual simulation like the Matrix or something along those lines. So how can Zac decisively rule out that he's not a brain in a vat or trapped in the Matrix?
If it's true "someone who claims that something exists is considered to have the burden of proof," then Zac would bear the burden of proof to prove there really is an external world, a tree really exists outside his window, other human beings are real, etc. In the meantime, according to your argument, Zac would have to give up his belief in the reality of objects like trees and persons until such a time as he can discharge his burden of proof. When will this occur?
"What's yours, rocking? Do you think it's okay to beat your slaves if they don't die within three days? If not, why not?"
I don't own any slaves so the question is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
If you're referring to Exo 21:20-21, then why don't you start here, for instance.
Given your atheism, enslaving people, beating them, and murdering them could all be permissible.
"As I'm sure you know, Sweden is still way behind the US on rape."
According to the UN (2008), the US has 28.6 rapes per 100,000, whereas Sweden has 53.2 rapes per 100,000.
"And as regrettable as suicide is, I wouldn't call suicides 'sociopaths' the way rapists and murderers are. Would you?"
I never equated those who commit suicide with rapists and murderers.
I brought up suicide (and put "sociopaths" in scare quotes) since I was playing off of your framework including your terminology or jargon of curbing violence. Suicide is a form of violence (to oneself). Obviously rape is a form of violence too.
"I do aim to be fair, and I did read the link, but there's nothing there about the breakdown according to religion, which is what we're talking about here. As far as I know, atheists are underrepresented in American prisons, so I don't see how demographics helps your argument."
Actually, it's a counterpoint against your assertion that "religion doesn't do a demonstrably better job of curbing violence than atheism" which in turn is built on the assumption that the US is a religious nation whereas other nations like Sweden and Japan are not.
The larger point is if you're going to be fair then you can't make blanket or unqualified comparisons like you've done. You have to look at many disparate factors such as all the variables in demographics. And, yes, you should also breakdown the stats by religious or irreligious affiliation. Yet, as I said above, all this is just for starters. That's my point.
rocking- you can look at the burden of proof about reality vs. illusion in at least two ways. One- you can agree that anyone claiming that the world is real has the burden of proof. Luckily, that the world exists is pretty easy to prove, something along the lines of Samuel Johnson kicking the stone, and we needn't reinvent the wheel every time we open our mouths.
DeleteTwo- you can say that the one claiming the world is illusion has the burden of proof, because the illusion is just as complex as the real world, plus being perpetrated somehow as an illusion, making it even more complex. The same is true of God: either you've got your natural world with order, beauty, etc, or you've got your natural world with order, beauty, etc, plus God. That's multiplying entities beyond necessity, which is of course Occam's version of the burden of proof: you need evidence for necessity in order to reasonably postulate more entities. And that evidence is lacking, at least as far as I can see.
About Sweden: yes, I see that my stats are out of date. There were more rapes per capita in the US than in Sweden up until 2006, but in 2007 and 2008 (the last year for which data was posted here) Sweden overtook the US. But murder rates are still much higher in the States.
About slaves- yes, I read that post you linked to when it came out in 2007. Steve is basically saying that Biblical slavery wasn't as bad as it might have been. This is undeniably true, and it might also well be true that the scriptual strictures on slavery represented an advance for that time. But still, if the Word of God is eternal, then there is no Biblical reason to be against slavery, as long as it's the (possibly) relatively less monstrous form condoned in Scripture. My moral standards, and yours too, are higher than this. And if you claim that I have no reason to be against slavery, murder, genocide, etc, than all I can say is, I'm glad you do have a reason, if you think you must have one in order not to enslave or murder.
cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch
zilch said:
Delete"rocking- you can look at the burden of proof about reality vs. illusion in at least two ways. One- you can agree that anyone claiming that the world is real has the burden of proof. Luckily, that the world exists is pretty easy to prove, something along the lines of Samuel Johnson kicking the stone, and we needn't reinvent the wheel every time we open our mouths."
1. Kicking a stone could be sufficiently accounted for if you were a brain in a vat or trapped in the Matrix. As Cypher said in the movie: "You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious."
2. Burden of proof issues are very complicated. They deal with issues in probability, counting entities, and so forth. Your example is pretty lame. Why should the person who denies what most people take to be utterly obvious (e.g. that tree is real, other people are real) have the burden of proof? That seems utterly ridiculous.
3. Moreover, how would one even go about proving something like that? Your answer: by kicking a stone. Johnson's "proof" was utterly ridiculous, as virtually all philosophers agree. Berkeley never denied the existence of stones, or that people could kick them. In fact, he affirmed the existence of all of them. So if it's "pretty easy to prove, something along the lines of Samuel Johnson kicking the stone," then go ahead and prove it. What makes you think someone kicking a stone proves we are not brains in a vat or plugged into the Matrix? I'm all ears.
"Two- you can say that the one claiming the world is illusion has the burden of proof"
1. If this is true, then it's possible for both of us to make positive claims. But at best this then only proves both sides bear a burden of proof. It doesn't prove (as you originally said) that I'm the one who needs to shoulder the burden of proof for making a positive claim. We're both making positive claims. So, as I originally asked, why isn't agnosticism the default position?
2. Also, here is something on burden of proof by an evidentialist.
"because the illusion is just as complex as the real world, plus being perpetrated somehow as an illusion, making it even more complex. The same is true of God: either you've got your natural world with order, beauty, etc, or you've got your natural world with order, beauty, etc, plus God. That's multiplying entities beyond necessity, which is of course Occam's version of the burden of proof: you need evidence for necessity in order to reasonably postulate more entities. And that evidence is lacking, at least as far as I can see."
Delete1. One problem with Occam's razor is that it's prejudicial and premature. Occam's razor is really an admission of ignorance. If we already knew how simple or complex the world is, we wouldn't resort to Occam's razor. So we're getting ahead of ourselves at that juncture.
2. Apropos #1, a simpler theory is better than a complex theory – assuming that reality is simple. But why assume (at the outset) that reality is simple? That's something you can't predict ahead of time.
A simpler explanation is better – provided that the world is as simple as your explanation. But that's the very question at issue. You don't want a theory that's more complicated than reality, but by the same token you don't want a theory that oversimplifies reality. Rather, you want a theory that matches reality.
And Occam's razor is misleading, because you can't say in advance what the world is like. That's something we must discover.
3. There's a tradeoff between ontological simplicity and theoretical simplicity. More entities can simplify the explanation. Fewer entities can complicate the theory. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes: "Most philosophers believe that, other things being equal, simpler theories are better. But what exactly does theoretical simplicity amount to? Syntactic simplicity, or elegance, measures the number and conciseness of the theory's basic principles. Ontological simplicity, or parsimony, measures the number of kinds of entities postulated by the theory. One issue concerns how these two forms of simplicity relate to one another...A distinction is often made between two fundamentally distinct senses of simplicity: syntactic simplicity (roughly, the number and complexity of hypotheses), and ontological simplicity (roughly, the number and complexity of things postulated). These two facets of simplicity are often referred to as elegance and parsimony respectively."
4. In addition to #3, there's functional simplicity. Something could be ontological or part-wise simple but functionally complex. An electric razor is mechanically more complex than a straight razor, but the latter is functionally more complex in that I could use it to perform more tasks than shaving.
5. Again, Occam's razor only works, if it works, if reality really is, in fact, simple. But this is a metaphysical thesis, not a scientific one. Some theists have argued that we have reason to believe this based on considerations from philosophy of religion and the kind of world God would make. But if this is so, Occam's razor can hardly be used to rebut theism!
Delete6. Moreover, Occam's razor only works, if it works, if all else is equal. But "all else" is hardly equal between the theist and atheist. You say there's "order, beauty, etc" without God. Really? That's what's up for debate! What is the "etc"? Is the "etc" any of this: truth, objective morality, logic, irreducible normativity, why anything exists at all? How can you reject God while leaving everything else intact? Where's your argument that atheism can supply all of this? Let's hear it. You have a duty to present it for the good of humanity. Particularly considering no atheist has succeeded at this. And, in fact, most admit that the search for an atheism that can supply these things is logical fool's gold.
7. Lastly, there's serious debate about whether simplicity as a factor in choosing which theory to believe is truth-apt. Bas van Fraassen and others have raised serious challenges to it. It's called a virtue. But does this just mean that the one who opts for simplicity is simply expressing some aesthetic preference? They just happen to like simpler theories? It makes things nice and easy to work with and manage? This is a debate about the pragmatics of theory choice.
"But murder rates are still much higher in the States."
Delete1. Which misses my point about the complexity of making comparisons in terms of violence. Say murder rates are higher in the US than in Sweden. But rape rates are higher in Sweden than in the US. So which nation is more or less better at "curbing violence"? At best it's a push. But my point was this is such a simplistic comparison in the first place. It leaves so much unaccounted for. What about the fact that the US is a much more ethnically diverse nation than Sweden? What about the fact that the US has more variation in law across states than does Sweden (e.g. some states allow the death penalty while others forbid it)?
2. By the way, why should violent crime be such a central measure? North Korea is a society with low violent crime rates. Should North Korea be the litmus test for secular societies then?
"About slaves- yes, I read that post you linked to when it came out in 2007. Steve is basically saying that Biblical slavery wasn't as bad as it might have been. This is undeniably true, and it might also well be true that the scriptual strictures on slavery represented an advance for that time. But still, if the Word of God is eternal, then there is no Biblical reason to be against slavery, as long as it's the (possibly) relatively less monstrous form condoned in Scripture. My moral standards, and yours too, are higher than this. And if you claim that I have no reason to be against slavery, murder, genocide, etc, than all I can say is, I'm glad you do have a reason, if you think you must have one in order not to enslave or murder."
1. Actually, no, that's not fair to what Steve argued. You need to go back and re-read what he wrote since it obviously didn't sink in.
2. Also, you keep repeating the canard that the Bible condones slavery. But this isn't the case. And you of all people should know since many people have been over this with you. Search Triablogue's archives if you've forgotten.
3. Speaking of reasons, you've given your reason to be against slavery, murder, genocide, etc. Your reason is that it's beneficial for society to be against these immoralities. But as I and many others have pointed out to you, this isn't an objective moral standard. For instance it's possible for a society to change and condone immoralities. Classic example that we've brought up with you countless times: Nazi Germany sanctioning the murder or genocide of the Jews.
4. Atheists have other fallbacks like intuition. But these too have been shown to be deficient in significant ways. In any case you haven't argued for anything for intuition.
5. It seems you want to take the moral high ground on these ethical issues. But the truth is you don't have any ground to stand on given your beliefs and arguments. You don't have any objective "moral standards." In fact, the truth is you're standing in quick sand.
While we're on the topic of Occam's razor, check out what Richard Feynman once said:
Delete"People say to me, 'Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?' No, I'm not. If it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it. That would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers, then that's the way it is. But either way there's Nature and she's going to come out the way she is. So therefore when we go to investigate we shouldn't pre-decide what it is we're looking for only to find out more about it."