Minnesota United Methodist approve gay rights resolution

[Joz]

This is contradicted by the existence of all of the non-Judeo-Christian theologies and civilizations around the world.

how did all these billions of people wind up worshipping something else?

And he shall speak great words against the most High and shall wear out the saints of the most High and think to change times and laws......Daniel 7:25
Historians tell of the apostasy of the early Christian centuries at which time many doctrines & practices contrary to God's will, were introduced. During the Middle Ages the dominant religio-political system not only placed itself equal to God but even above God. Man was created a "little lower than the angels". He should never assume a place equal to God, nor exhalt himself above God.

 

[MissileMan]

And he shall speak great words against the most High and shall wear out the saints of the most High and think to change times and laws......Daniel 7:25
Historians tell of the apostasy of the early Christian centuries at which time many doctrines & practices contrary to God's will, were introduced. During the Middle Ages the dominant religio-political system not only placed itself equal to God but even above God. Man was created a "little lower than the angels". He should never assume a place equal to God, nor exhalt himself above God.

Firstly, thanks for putting more effort into your response than "just because". However, I'm not sure that your response explains the origins of Hinduism, or Bhuddism, or the Greek Pantheon, or the Norse gods, etc.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So, where does morality come from?

It is the result of the observation of human interactions over the centuries and adopting guidelines for those interactions which promote civil behavior within societies. Nothin mystical about it. Religion comes into the picture as a means of encouraging adherents to abide by those guidlines under the threat, or promise, of punishment, or reward in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife.

 

[Joz]

.....Religion comes into the picture as a means of encouraging adherents to abide by those guidlines under the threat, or promise, of punishment, or reward in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife.

If you serve God for reward or fear of punishment then you've missed the whole point.
Usually, you do not control love, it controls you, and you behave accordingly. But you still have the choice. Like falling in love with your wife. You didn't have to marry her.

 

[Eightball]

It is the result of the observation of human interactions over the centuries and adopting guidelines for those interactions which promote civil behavior within societies. Nothin mystical about it. Religion comes into the picture as a means of encouraging adherents to abide by those guidlines under the threat, or promise, of punishment, or reward in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife.

That's still not the bottom of it......

Why is friendly behaviour promoted? If you say for the continuance of the society, then you must go even deeper and ask the question, "why" again.

The animal kingdom excluding humans, doesn't adhere to civil codes. It doesn't create laws of civility, or good behaviour. What caused man to initiate civility via laws both written and unwritten?

In their(animals) instinctual life of survival, animals have some extremely violent methods of societal, or group behaviours. Male lions will eat the cubs sired by another male. Many species fight nearly to the death just to establish harems.

Man can and does mimick or parallel many of these other species exhibits of survival, yet man went beyond the instinctual, with the Code of Hammurabi, the Ten Commandments, etc.. Why?

Bully, you haven't answered that core/base question. Why has mankind taken this leap of difference from the rest of the animal kingdom. If you say, increased brain/size of some sort, that still doesn't give a reason for coming up with civility, goodness, "do unto others as you want them to do unto you", "love your enemy" etc. . Many of these codes/rules of civility go beyond instinctual, survival, parameters and are totally missing from all creatures except for human kind.

To say that it was a matter of promoting civil behaviour is to say, "Air exists, end of story!", and ignore the real genesis of the behaviour.

Why did humans promote civility?

Why didn't humans go the route of wolves? They're successful at surviving. Family groups of Chimpazees have been discovered that will actually go out and kill Chimpanzees from other family groups. Why didn't Chimpanzees desire civility and laws.

What gave man the "desire" for civility, and to design laws? He didn't need civility and laws to survive, as proven by the other members of the animal kingdom.

Increased intelligence has yet to be proven as a motivator of or means of inspiring goodness in an individual. Desiring goodness, and civility to others of the same species, leaps beyond normal, progressive reason.

Some humans of the highest order of intelligence have been human kind's greatest enemys of their own species........i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot.

Obviously, intelligence isn't the reason, as near idiots, and those of limited intellect and brain function can and have proven to show great civility, to their fellow humans as well.

No, man's intellect, or brain capacity isn't what has stimulated civility, and even jumped those bounds to the point of "love one's enemy". No, this is an innate thing that is beyond the realm of the Great Saviour, "scientific protocol", to bring an answer. It defies normal, human reasoning, and crys out for an answer.

It's the same reason that so many great scientists became believers in a supreme creator. It evolved through their research. The more they probed their creation to find answers, the more it led them to a final conclusion. All of this is too great, too finite, too complex, too ordered, too statistically, "odds defying", to be "chance".

The same goes with the desire to have innate goodness in all of mankind. It's goes against the grain of logical, expedient, survival. It defies the code of natural evolution, as exhibited in the animal kingdom, minus the human element or species.

 

[Dr Grump]

Bully, you haven't answered that core/base question. Why has mankind taken this leap of difference from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Because we are sentinent beings and think differently from animals....tis the way nature made us...

 

[Eightball]

Because we are sentinent beings and think differently from animals....tis the way nature made us...

Tis, not an answer my friend, but a resultant observation of man's difference as I have previously mentioned.
....
What has made us "sentinent" beings, and what has caused us to think "differently" from animals?

What is this thing "nature" that's responsible for making us, this way?
.....
You understand, don't you, that, "effect" is being promoted here as an answer, when I'm asking for a, "causal" reason for man's distinctive behaviour that differentiates him from the animals?

I will not accept brain capacity, as this falls in the realm of "effect", and I have mentioned earlier that human beings with very limited brain function, or very limited I.Q. distinguish themselves from the animal kingdom too, as they display the desire and traits of goodness within, and towards others of their species.
.....
Human kind's distinguishing ability to cross the line of "objective" and reach into the "subjective" and create, commands such as No adultery, Love thine enemy, Do not covet........all go against the instinctual urges of survivalist tendencies, and place a premium on "value" towards other fellow humans. It replaces the natural "selfist" tendency inherent in all species of life. Why? So we're sentinet. Why?

We(humans) have crossed a subjective bridge. A bridge of our own creation? Doubtful. A bridge/capacity that has distinguished us behaviourally from all species? Why? Whats the "C A U S A L"......?

Is the next step, to admit that the "causal" is out of the realm of scientific investigation, or philosophical discovery? Is the "causal" that one "God" that the Greek Philosophers couldn't place a name upon, when they debated on Mars Hill. Does anyone remember Apostle Paul's impact on those Greek Philosophers who were debating the very existence of a "causal" force/god that they couldn't describe?

Taken From The NASB Translation:

Acts 17:18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him(Paul). Some were saying, "What would this idle babbler wish to say?" Others, "He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.
Acts 17:19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?
Acts 17:20 "For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean."
Acts 17:21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.)
Acts 17:22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
Acts 17:23 "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
Acts 17:24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
Acts 17:25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
Acts 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
Acts 17:27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
Acts 17:29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
Acts 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Acts 17:32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this."
Acts 17:33 So Paul went out of their midst.
Acts 17:34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the

Now, that man Paul didn't beat around the bush, but did give a "causal" of all the effects or behaviours of mankind that distinguished itself from the animal kingdom.

Excerpt From N.T. Acts, Chapter 17. No, it's not out of context. If you doubt the context, then open up the bible to this chapter and read the verses, before and after these verses. In fact read this in the NIV, King James, Amplified, New English, and RS bibles. It will still convey the same thought.

 

[MissileMan]

Tis, not an answer my friend, but a resultant observation of man's difference as I have previously mentioned.
....
What has made us "sentinent" beings, and what has caused us to think "differently" from animals?

What is this thing "nature" that's responsible for making us, this way?
.....
You understand, don't you, that, "effect" is being promoted here as an answer, when I'm asking for a, "causal" reason for man's distinctive behaviour that differentiates him from the animals?

I will not accept brain capacity, as this falls in the realm of "effect", and I have mentioned earlier that human beings with very limited brain function, or very limited I.Q. distinguish themselves from the animal kingdom too, as they display the desire and traits of goodness within, and towards others of their species.
.....
Human kind's distinguishing ability to cross the line of "objective" and reach into the "subjective" and create, commands such as No adultery, Love thine enemy, Do not covet........all go against the instinctual urges of survivalist tendencies, and place a premium on "value" towards other fellow humans. It replaces the natural "selfist" tendency inherent in all species of life. Why? So we're sentinet. Why?

We(humans) have crossed a subjective bridge. A bridge of our own creation? Doubtful. A bridge/capacity that has distinguished us behaviourally from all species? Why? Whats the "C A U S A L"......?

Is the next step, to admit that the "causal" is out of the realm of scientific investigation, or philosophical discovery? Is the "causal" that one "God" that the Greek Philosophers couldn't place a name upon, when they debated on Mars Hill. Does anyone remember Apostle Paul's impact on those Greek Philosophers who were debating the very existence of a "causal" force/god that they couldn't describe?

Taken From The NASB Translation:

Acts 17:18 And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him(Paul). Some were saying, "What would this idle babbler wish to say?" Others, "He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,"--because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.
Acts 17:19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?
Acts 17:20 "For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean."
Acts 17:21 (Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.)
Acts 17:22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
Acts 17:23 "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
Acts 17:24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
Acts 17:25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
Acts 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
Acts 17:27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
Acts 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
Acts 17:29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
Acts 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
Acts 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Acts 17:32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this."
Acts 17:33 So Paul went out of their midst.
Acts 17:34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the

Now, that man Paul didn't beat around the bush, but did give a "causal" of all the effects or behaviours of mankind that distinguished itself from the animal kingdom.

Excerpt From N.T. Acts, Chapter 17. No, it's not out of context. If you doubt the context, then open up the bible to this chapter and read the verses, before and after these verses. In fact read this in the NIV, King James, Amplified, New English, and RS bibles. It will still convey the same thought.

The causal isn't divine, it's lingual. We have transcended thinking and living as ordinary animals because we developed the ability of complex language.

 

[Eightball]

The causal isn't divine, it's lingual. We have transcended thinking and living as ordinary animals because we developed the ability of complex language.

That's not causal......that's still a resultant "effect" again.

Lingual.....is just a resultant of a "causal".....What's the causal? In fact what has caused man to transcend in in thinking and living as distinguished from ordinary animals?

All these things are admirable for mankind, but they still had to have a "causal" to arrive in humanity.

And as far as "lingual" attributes go, Monks sworn to silence or the deaf, don't seem to need, the "lingual" to distinguish themselves from the rest of the animal world as transcendent humans.

No, I appreciate the replies, but I really think that we are missing the ultimate causal of all effects.

Why is it that so many agnostic, and atheistic scientists, researchers, and inventors of old became very religious, after doing much research in their respective fields. I didn't say "all", but said, "many". I will attribute that to free, human will of course.
....
Here's another angle:

Circumstantial evidence is allowed in a court of law. In fact in most states, circumstantial evidence is enough to send a person to the gallows. So, circumstantial evidence carries a heavy influence in court, and or judgement of deeds commited or not commited, according to mankind.

Now, if you were a Creator of everything, how would you convince mankind that you exist, and that you are the ulitimate causal to all results/existence/matter, etc.?

Could you lay hints/evidence throughout your very creative work? Could these evidences be in your(the Creator) be displayed in ways that would confound humanity's intellect, or ability to discovery an answer?

Possibly could your evidences of your existence be revealed in subjective elements only found in humanity that transcend animalistic/survivalist behaviours?

Maybe even the ability of language?

 

[MissileMan]

That's not causal......that's still a resultant "effect" again.

I disagree...every human advancement can be directly linked to our ability to communicate complex concepts through language.

And as far as "lingual" attributes go, Monks sworn to silence or the deaf, don't seem to need, the "lingual" to distinguish themselves from the rest of the animal world as transcendent humans.

Never heard of writing huh?
Adding Braille to preempt the "what about the blind?" question.

 

[Dr Grump]

Tis, not an answer my friend, but a resultant observation of man's difference as I have previously mentioned.
....
What has made us "sentinent" beings, and what has caused us to think "differently" from animals?

What is this thing "nature" that's responsible for making us, this way?
.....
You understand, don't you, that, "effect" is being promoted here as an answer, when I'm asking for a, "causal" reason for man's distinctive behaviour that differentiates him from the animals?

I will not accept brain capacity, as this falls in the realm of "effect", and I have mentioned earlier that human beings with very limited brain function, or very limited I.Q. distinguish themselves from the animal kingdom too, as they display the desire and traits of goodness within, and towards others of their species.
.....
Human kind's distinguishing ability to cross the line of "objective" and reach into the "subjective" and create, commands such as No adultery, Love thine enemy, Do not covet........all go against the instinctual urges of survivalist tendencies, and place a premium on "value" towards other fellow humans. It replaces the natural "selfist" tendency inherent in all species of life. Why? So we're sentinet. Why?

We(humans) have crossed a subjective bridge. A bridge of our own creation? Doubtful. A bridge/capacity that has distinguished us behaviourally from all species? Why? Whats the "C A U S A L"......?

Is the next step, to admit that the "causal" is out of the realm of scientific investigation, or philosophical discovery? Is the "causal" that one "God" that the Greek Philosophers couldn't place a name upon, when they debated on Mars Hill. Does anyone remember Apostle Paul's impact on those Greek Philosophers who were debating the very existence of a "causal" force/god that they couldn't describe?
.

You want an answer to why man is man and your answer is a God. Mine is evolution (of sorts). Adaptation, adaptation, adaptation...nothing more, nothing less. You believe there is no way man could have found his way in the world without an intervention of a god. I think man found his way due to nature taking his course. This has nothing to do with any omnipotent being. Of course, you can go back to the beginning of time and ask the big questions:
Where did we come from?
Is the Universe circular?
If it is circular, what awaits outside the circle?
And we could go on and on.
Your belief is there is no other reasonable explanations due to scriptures and the word of god. My belief is many things over the centuries have remained unexplained only to be explained by science. I say that eventually everything will be explained by science....

 

[dilloduck]

You want an answer to why man is man and your answer is a God. Mine is evolution (of sorts). Adaptation, adaptation, adaptation...nothing more, nothing less. You believe there is no way man could have found his way in the world without an intervention of a god. I think man found his way due to nature taking his course. This has nothing to do with any omnipotent being. Of course, you can go back to the beginning of time and ask the big questions:
Where did we come from?
Is the Universe circular?
If it is circular, what awaits outside the circle?
And we could go on and on.
Your belief is there is no other reasonable explanations due to scriptures and the word of god. My belief is many things over the centuries have remained unexplained only to be explained by science. I say that eventually everything will be explained by science....

And what happens next?

 

[MissileMan]

And what happens next?

 

[Dr Grump]

And what happens next?

Some then :bong420: a little bit of and then finally :kiss2:

 

[dilloduck]

Some then :bong420: a little bit of and then finally :kiss2:

God already told us that.

 

[jillian]

God already told us that.

Or did that happen already so you think it was told?

 

[Eightball]

You want an answer to why man is man and your answer is a God. Mine is evolution (of sorts). Adaptation, adaptation, adaptation...nothing more, nothing less. You believe there is no way man could have found his way in the world without an intervention of a god. I think man found his way due to nature taking his course. This has nothing to do with any omnipotent being. Of course, you can go back to the beginning of time and ask the big questions:
Where did we come from?
Is the Universe circular?
If it is circular, what awaits outside the circle?
And we could go on and on.
Your belief is there is no other reasonable explanations due to scriptures and the word of god. My belief is many things over the centuries have remained unexplained only to be explained by science. I say that eventually everything will be explained by science....

May I ask why an Intelligent Creator can't be an option, but evolution from primordial soup seems so logical?

Also, the incredible orderliness of Atomic structure, Chemical intereactions that follow systematic, and predictable mathematical outcomes, seems to scream of great intelligent design.

All matter follows this unalterable sytsem of material existence, yet many advocate that all of life was by chance, similar to a roulette wheel ball's chance of hitting certain numbers enough times in a certain amount of time(3.5 billion years) and wa-la, we have self sustaining carbon based organisms/molecules that replicate themselves via the most unorthodox ways....and computer puzzling ways.

How is it that some of man can't take a leap to an intelligence behind a very complex system of material existence......protons, neutrons, DNA, RNA, electron orbits, Alpha and Beta particles.......etc.

Even secular physicists, can't answer where it all came from.........but residual temperature drop in the universe does lead to a starting point of matter or the universes birth. What engendered the start? We are back to the ultimate causal of this first moment of reality, matter, existence.......Why is it that all matter is composed of particles that combine, recombine, and dis-associate according to predictable mathematical rules. Isn't that orderliness? What brings orderliness to this Universe?

Why is intelligence passed-by as a possiblity?

Actually particles tend to move towards dis-association with one another, or scattered randomness, yet, mysteriously our universe and much in creation seems to go against this law.........i.e.. An organism made of complex carbon based molecules dies. Something leaves the body of the organism that promotes continued survival, and it's new state of being is called "death". Now all the complex carbon based molecues that made up that organism(unicellular, or multicellular) start to break down into less complex molecular structures. Why? What caused them originally to stay complex and form a sustained life form, and what has caused that life form to cease to stay intact molecularly and break down into smaller molecules, and atoms that cease to interact one with another to sustain a life form. What left that life form......or what force or initiator that kept that life form as a viable self-sustain group of molecules all working together in complex harmony ceased to exist it it any longer.

In layman's terms; What was the battery/source that kicked over the engine, and now the introduction of the life-needing electricity from that source has been withdrawn for some reason? No battery under the hood; No running engine.

Live duck, now a dead duck. Live human, now a dead human. Self sustaining molecules working together to keep this organism viable, but now it's dead and the molecules quickly break down to basic elements.........i.e. Ashes to ashes, earth to earth.

My mom called it "that spark of life", in her laywomens way. Something left that organism either quickly or slowly, but whatever it was, it sustained and held that organism together in a symbiotic relationship of complex molecues. This is a total anathem to the laws of physics that says that you can't force atoms to combine and gradually form more complex molecular structures, as it takes energy applied. Energy naturally dissipates, and that is counter productive to sustaining complex molecular structures/ organisms.

Yes, death seems be the end of a force that holds an organism together as a viable, living entitiy. What is that force...........or Spark?

Death=breakdown of complex to simple materially speaking. Life=holding complex molecules together in symbiotic relationship while basically countering the laws of molecular randomness, and disassociation.

Interestingly, in the N.T. and more specifically Collosians states specifically that God holds all creation together. In other words, He/God is applying/exerting a force that holds things together, otherwise matter would basically follow a massive disassociative move. The Collosians account is basically saying that life forms are held together and successfully surviving as a result of outward influence from an intelligent creator, that counteracts natural disassociation of material particles.

Is life then an exhibit of the miraculous, and hints loudly of intelligent intervention sustaining it against the expected law of randomness? Is death and ultimate decay of organisms a perfect example of the natural work of the law of physics; i.e., complex goes to non-complex molecularly/atomically.

 

[Dr Grump]

May I ask why an Intelligent Creator can't be an option, but evolution from primordial soup seems so logical?

Also, the incredible orderliness of Atomic structure, Chemical intereactions that follow systematic, and predictable mathematical outcomes, seems to scream of great intelligent design.

An intelligent creator can be an option, it is just one I choose not to believe. Atomic structure is only orderly because we have been taught it is. Maybe it isn't that orderly and needs to be in a certain combination to work. When it isn't in tha combination it doesn't work. The thing about intelligent design is that the Earth and its habitants are far from perfect. Many millions of beings are born every minute that do not meet the norm of their species. If humans are so perfect, why the need to urinate and deficate to get rid of waste? Why have an appendix? Why give birth in such a painful way? There are many such examples.

All matter follows this unalterable sytsem of material existence, yet many advocate that all of life was by chance, similar to a roulette wheel ball's chance of hitting certain numbers enough times in a certain amount of time(3.5 billion years) and wa-la, we have self sustaining carbon based organisms/molecules that replicate themselves via the most unorthodox ways....and computer puzzling ways.

I don't know why you find chance so unbelievable. Out of all the trillions of planets in the universe, the chances of life being replicated as we know it is very remote, so the chances of a haphazard event are very high IMO. If there were trillions of planets that were similar to Earth, I'd find the idea of a God more believable.

M
Why is it that all matter is composed of particles that combine, recombine, and dis-associate according to predictable mathematical rules. Isn't that orderliness? What brings orderliness to this Universe?

Some would argue the Universe is not that orderly. In fact, most things explained by science are logical and make sense. If they didn't, then again, a God might explain things. If things fell upwards instead of down, if we could breath underwater when our bodies aren't made for it etc, etc.

An organism made of complex carbon based molecules dies. Something leaves the body of the organism that promotes continued survival, and it's new state of being is called "death".

I assume you mean the spirit leaves? If so, this is where we differ. I do not believe anything leaves the body. The person's mind is at one with the body. When one dies, they both cease to exist. For the rest of the above paragraph to be a point, you have to believe the first part. I don't, which invalidates your point (only iMO of course)

 

[dmp]

Atomic structure is only orderly because we have been taught it is. Maybe it isn't that orderly and needs to be in a certain combination to work.

That line right there - those two...are about equal with "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

 

[Dr Grump]

That line right there - those two...are about equal with "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

And what was wrong with the "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." statement?

As for my statement, it is just my opinion.