What's happening in the Methodist Church?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Here we go again, guys. It wasn't the Church's fault. The failure was just the Christians in the church who pushed back against science. I feel like I've read this play before.

I didn't state anything like that.  There was resistance to heliocentrism from many directions, including the church.  Galileo was placed under house arrest for a few charges, one of them being his support of heliocentrism. 

[Brisketexan 105140]

18 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

were absolutely motivated and guided by their christian worldview in their pursuit in finding a single set of guiding laws of the universe.  Claiming their theology had nothing to do with it is utter nonsense given by folks with no knowledge of these men or the period of time they lived in.

Quite a few Greeks had taken a similar approach.  Same with muslim scholars.  In fact, had much of past learning not been expunged in various orgies of attacking "heathenism," the west would have had a much better head start.

And nevermind the consistent, millenia-long anti-semitism woven into Christianity, which repressed jewish scholars (both actual and potential).

Christianity came along at something of the right place and right time for Europe, which was also in the right place and right time in terms of climate and resources.  An objective view doesn't discount how Christianity fit reasonably well into that puzzle and enabled many moves forward, just as an objective view also acknowledges that 1) it also hamstrung thought in a variety of ways, and oppressed a shitload of ideas characterized as heretical, as well as 2) if it hadn't been Christianity, it would have been something else that fueled the intellectual pursuits of Europe and the west.  The time was ripe, the ground was plowed and ready.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Quite a few Greeks had taken a similar approach. 

No, they didn't.  There were many brilliant mathematicians and astronomers in numerous cultures (all of them, really), but the Greeks did not believe the celestial and terrestrial were the same material, so they did not look for a single set of laws for the natural world.  John Philoponus was one of the first to go against the prevailing Greek thought on the structure of the cosmos and proposed the unity of celestial and terrestrial matter.  He did not believe that the stars were eternal or divine.  The reason he believed this is because he was a Christian and believed the stars were merely created things.  

The Chinese also did not look for a general laws of nature.  It wasn't because they weren't excellent mathematicians (they were):

Of probably even greater importance, Chinese scholars abandoned the idea of a supreme being with persona and creative properties. No rational Author of Nature existed in their universe; consequently the objects they meticulously described did not follow universal principles, but instead operated within particular rules followed by those entities in the cosmic order. In the absence of a compelling need for the notion of general laws - thoughts in the mind of God, so to speak - little or no search was made for them.  -Consilience, E.O. Wilson

On the other hand, like Philoponus the pioneers of the scientific revolution believed the entire natural world, including the celestial realm, was not divine but created by a single sovereign God who wrote "the book of nature."  Furthermore, they believed that God created with order and simplicity and that we can learn & know the laws written in the book of nature.  As it turns out, this is an excellent worldview for finding the laws of physics. 

Christians thinkers did not have any advantage in brilliancy.  That is the basic premise of my argument.  They achieved certain accomplishments and breakthroughs in part due to worldview, not due to any advantage in brilliancy.  Worldviews have a way of shaping the way we view the world.  

Feel free to counter any of this with actual facts from history. I'm not as interested in the "they just got lucky" hypothesis or quotes from your Christocapitalists and the Cudgel of Cruelty manifesto. 

[Brisketexan 105140]

34 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

No, they didn't.  There were many brilliant mathematicians and astronomers in numerous cultures (all of them, really), but the Greeks did not believe the celestial and terrestrial were the same material, so they did not look for a single set of laws for the natural world.  John Philoponus was one of the first to go against the prevailing Greek thought on the structure of the cosmos and proposed the unity of celestial and terrestrial matter.  He did not believe that the stars were eternal or divine.  The reason he believed this is because he was a Christian and believed the stars were merely created things.  

The Chinese also did not look for a general laws of nature.  It wasn't because they weren't excellent mathematicians (they were):

Of probably even greater importance, Chinese scholars abandoned the idea of a supreme being with persona and creative properties. No rational Author of Nature existed in their universe; consequently the objects they meticulously described did not follow universal principles, but instead operated within particular rules followed by those entities in the cosmic order. In the absence of a compelling need for the notion of general laws - thoughts in the mind of God, so to speak - little or no search was made for them.  -Consilience, E.O. Wilson

On the other hand, like Philoponus the pioneers of the scientific revolution believed the entire natural world, including the celestial realm, was not divine but created by a single sovereign God who wrote "the book of nature."  Furthermore, they believed that God created with order and simplicity and that we can learn & know the laws written in the book of nature.  As it turns out, this is an excellent worldview for finding the laws of physics. 

Christians thinkers did not have any advantage in brilliancy.  That is the basic premise of my argument.  They achieved certain accomplishments and breakthroughs in part due to worldview, not due to any advantage in brilliancy.  Worldviews have a way of shaping the way we view the world.  

Feel free to counter any of this with actual facts from history. I'm not as interested in the "they just got lucky" hypothesis or quotes from your Christocapitalists and the Cudgel of Cruelty manifesto. 

Yeah, I guess those pagan idiots Plato and Aristotle DIDN'T have a view of there being a unified order to the universe.  Silly me.  Foolish of me to think that anything other than the Cross (and eaglefreedomflag) is the path to enlightened thinking.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, I guess those pagan idiots Plato and Aristotle DIDN'T have a view of there being a unified order to the universe.  Silly me.  Foolish of me to think that anything other than the Cross (and eaglefreedomflag) is the path to enlightened thinking.

Does it give you any pause that you’ve not looked into this topic at all and are unable to refute anything I’ve stated with any references?

[Mole 4333]

From Edward Maunder, The Astronomy of the Bible:

Quote

So long as men hold, as a practical faith, that the results which attend their efforts depend upon whether Jupiter is awake and active, or Neptune is taking an unfair advantage of his brother's sleep; upon whether Diana is bending her silver bow for the battle, or flying weeping and discomfited because Juno has boxed her ears—so long is it useless for them to make or consult observations.

Quote

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"

was preserved in the first words of their Sacred Book. That nation declared—

"All the gods of the people are idols: but the Lord made the heavens."

For that same nation the watchword was—

"Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord."

From these words the Hebrews not only learned a great spiritual truth, but derived intellectual freedom. For by these words they were taught that all the host of heaven and of earth were created things—merely "things," not divinities—and not only that, but that the Creator was One God, not many gods; that there was but one law-giver; and that therefore there could be no conflict of laws. These first words of Genesis, then, may be called the charter of all the physical sciences, for by them is conferred freedom from all the bonds of unscientific superstition, and by them also do men know that consistent law holds throughout the whole universe. It is the intellectual freedom of the Hebrew that the scientist of to-day inherits. 

Treating the observable universe as a created thing under one God — rather than something that acts irrationally based on the whims of competing gods — is pretty transformative in developing a scientific understanding of the world. You can study the created thing; the competing personalities of various gods doesn’t really allow for that.

[Brisketexan 105140]

9 minutes ago, Mole said:

From Edward Maunder, The Astronomy of the Bible:

Treating the observable universe as a created thing under one God — rather than something that acts irrationally based on the whims of competing gods — is pretty transformative in developing a scientific understanding of the world. You can study the created thing; the competing personalities of various gods doesn’t really allow for that.

Then....how do we account for the Jews -- the monotheists from whom Christian monotheism arose -- not being the end-all be-all in giving the world science and Coca Cola and whatnot?  Hmmmm.....could it have ANYTHING to do with the baked-in often-genocidal anti-semitism of the Christian world?

Jesus Tapdancing Christ (sacrilege fully intended), the masturbatory self-congratulation (while simultaneously averting their gaze from their atrocities) of "Christians" appears to be in a knock-down-dragout fight to be their #1 feature, neck-and-neck with "frequently unspeakably cruel and genocidal."

['stache 21815]

At least paganism could explain why our lives are so chaotic. Our creators/overseers/whoever are also self-interested entities and sow chaos amongst each other, makes sense that it spills into our own world. A single all powerful, all knowing god could make everything great for everyone but chooses to let people suffer, even those who do what he asks by worshiping him. Makes zero sense unless he's also the villain in the story. The dude flooded the world and killed everyone because they didn't love him enough, what the shit is that about?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Then....how do we account for the Jews -- the monotheists from whom Christian monotheism arose -- not being the end-all be-all in giving the world science and Coca Cola and whatnot?  Hmmmm.....could it have ANYTHING to do with the baked-in often-genocidal anti-semitism of the Christian world?

Jesus Tapdancing Christ (sacrilege fully intended), the masturbatory self-congratulation (while simultaneously averting their gaze from their atrocities) of "Christians" appears to be in a knock-down-dragout fight to be their #1 feature, neck-and-neck with "frequently unspeakably cruel and genocidal."

Follow up questions for you on your reference to Aristotle and the "unified order to the universe":

1.  Did Aristotle propose a unified set of physical laws that governs both the terrestrial and the celestial realm?

2. Was the possibility of a unified set of physical laws that governs both the terrestrial and the celestial realm compatible with Aristotelian metaphysics?

These should be easy ones for you given your extensive study on this topic.

 

 

[Celery Man 20950]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

At least paganism could explain why our lives are so chaotic. Our creators/overseers/whoever are also self-interested entities and sow chaos amongst each other, makes sense that it spills into our own world. A single all powerful, all knowing god could make everything great for everyone but chooses to let people suffer, even those who do what he asks by worshiping him.

[F250 28775]

I know that the UMC is one of the blandest denominations in Christianity but 98% of this thread has nothing to do with the topic.

Could we discuss something more interesting like the Book of Discipline, you might need some Adderall to keep interest but at least it would be on topic. Shit, the way some of y'all always go off topic you probably could use some Adderall.

[TwiceHorn 31471]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

I know that the UMC is one of the blandest denominations in Christianity but 98% of this thread has nothing to do with the topic.

Could we discuss something more interesting like the Book of Discipline, you might need some Adderall to keep interest but at least it would be on topic. Shit, the way some of y'all always go off topic you probably could use some Adderall.

Well, the sky fairy types always invade and derail any thread dealing with any aspect of religion.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

I know that the UMC is one of the blandest denominations in Christianity but 98% of this thread has nothing to do with the topic.

Could we discuss something more interesting like the Book of Discipline, you might need some Adderall to keep interest but at least it would be on topic. Shit, the way some of y'all always go off topic you probably could use some Adderall.

I'm good at staying on a single topic at length, so long as it is not the subject topic.  

 

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the sky fairy types always invade and derail any thread dealing with any aspect of religion.

True.  Though the internet atheists seem to be going with "sky daddy" these days.  I think they believe that is the more offensive term.  

[Leeroy Jenkins 2404]

13 minutes ago, F250 said:

I know that the UMC is one of the blandest denominations in Christianity but 98% of this thread has nothing to do with the topic.

Could we discuss something more interesting like the Book of Discipline, you might need some Adderall to keep interest but at least it would be on topic. Shit, the way some of y'all always go off topic you probably could use some Adderall.

[Neonmoon 38129]

11 minutes ago, F250 said:

I know that the UMC is one of the blandest denominations in Christianity but 98% of this thread has nothing to do with the topic.

Could we discuss something more interesting like the Book of Discipline, you might need some Adderall to keep interest but at least it would be on topic. Shit, the way some of y'all always go off topic you probably could use some Adderall.

You got any? 

[F250 28775]

16 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

You got any? 

Yeah, I just need to dip into my kid's supply.

[Gatorubet 30238]

7 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

The Chinese also did not look for a general laws of nature.  It wasn't because they weren't excellent mathematicians (they were):

Of probably even greater importance, Chinese scholars abandoned the idea of a supreme being with persona and creative properties. No rational Author of Nature existed in their universe; consequently the objects they meticulously described did not follow universal principles..,, but instead operated within particular rules followed by those entities in the cosmic order. In the absence of a compelling need for the notion of general laws - thoughts in the mind of God, so to speak - little or no search was made for them.  -Consilience, E.O. Wilson 

Quote

ACCORDING TO THE CHINESE world view, the universe is run by a single principle, the Tao, or Great Ultimate. This principle is divided into two opposite principles—yin and yang. All phenomena can be understood using yin-yang and five associated agents, which affect the movements of the stars, the workings of the body, the nature of foods, the qualities of music, the ethical qualities of humans, the progress of time, the operations of government, and even the nature of historical change.

The Astronomical Phenomena (Tien Yuan Fa Wei). Compiled by Bao Yunlong in the thirteenth century. Ming Dynasty edition, 1457–1463. Chinese Rare Book Collection, Asian Division, Library of Congress

Stupid Library of Congress!!!

 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Stupid Library of Congress!!!

 

Along with qi operating according to a pattern that conform to the two basic modes of yin and yang, they also had shen (spirits or gods) associated with objects like stars, mountains, and streams, that exercise a direct influence on things in this world and played a role in good luck and bad luck.  Ancient Chinese worldview was essentially animism.  Virtually everything (rocks, trees, planets, animals, humans) could be animated by good or bad spirits.  

Between Heaven and Earth there is no thing that does not consist of yin and yang, and there is no place where yin and yang are not found. Therefore there is no place where gods and spirits do not exist. Zhu Xi Song dynasty scholar, 1130-1200

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/cosmos/bgov/cosmos.htm

So no, Chinese worldview did not lead to a single set of general laws of nature.  

[HamsterHookah 112]

Well, this has been a fun thread to binge read after not knowing it existed until now.

[Player 4575]

Yeah, I guess those pagan idiots Plato and Aristotle…

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

On 5/25/2023 at 3:52 PM, axiom of foundation said:

The pioneers and main contributors to the scientific revolution were absolutely motivated and guided by their christian worldview in their pursuit in finding a single set of guiding laws of the universe.  Claiming their theology had nothing to do with it is utter nonsense given by folks with no knowledge of these men or the period of time they lived in.

Bullshit. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Bullshit. 

The effort from the skeptics in this thread has been pitiful.  Have yall forgotten how to play the point-counterpoint game?  I guess its easier to just post sermons & lectures.  Or in your case you go with:

[Guest]

On 5/26/2023 at 1:12 PM, 'stache said:

At least paganism could explain why our lives are so chaotic. Our creators/overseers/whoever are also self-interested entities and sow chaos amongst each other, makes sense that it spills into our own world. A single all powerful, all knowing god could make everything great for everyone but chooses to let people suffer, even those who do what he asks by worshiping him. 

This is a good point.  With monotheism you get the problem of evil.  You don't have that challenge with polytheism or various types of paganism for the reasons you stated.  My preferred approach to the problem of evil is given by Leibniz.  

[Satchel 6938]

A funny thing happened on the way to dissolution of the UMC. The conservatives who have been pushing for the breakup, are the ones leaving the connection, while the more progressive congregations are opting to stay. Not surprisingly, most of those leaving are in the Old South footprint of Texas, Florida, and Georgia.

[SydneyCarton 48106]

11 hours ago, Satchel said:

A funny thing happened on the way to dissolution of the UMC. The conservatives who have been pushing for the breakup, are the ones leaving the connection, while the more progressive congregations are opting to stay. Not surprisingly, most of those leaving are in the Old South footprint of Texas, Florida, and Georgia.

The SBC is waiting with open and desperate arms to support the hatred in their hearts. 

[Guest]

Could y’all take the Methodist and denomination talk to another thread?