Joe Rogan isnt sold on the Bing Bang theory finds Jesus resurrection more plausible

[Cajun]

Not to punch down though or make blanket statements regarding an entire religion- it is probably been 50-50 for me in terms of meeting Christians who are pricks and ones who are genuinely sweet, caring, loving people who are putting real effort into embodying the words of Christ every day.

To me that's a consequence of Christianity being more of a tradition in the states nowadays. It has nothing to do with true Christianity. There's a reason why broad is the way that leads to destruction and narrow the way that leads to life.

 

[Siver!]

I'm really surprised that you never heard of this before. It's mostly random mutations that drive evolution. The thing is, in a large enough population there may be just enough individuals who acquire just the right mutation to survive changes in habitat or environment or the microbiome (e.g. viruses and bacteria) and their progeny presumably carry the same mutation and multiply to fill the niche formerly occupied by individuals who are not so lucky.

The way you put this post it's like you believe there's some intention, some deliberate action a species takes to allow it to survive. It just isn't so. Some get lucky and some don't. That's why you get people with fatal heart defects, savants like Mozart, and infectious diseases that kill their hosts so quickly they have no chance to spread so they die out on their own.

So okay, I think there are many more facets to this than a binary "intentional vs random" argument.

If we're talking about things like the human beings mutation of having blue eyes, then I suppose that could be an "intentional" mutation. Same way we breed dogs to look a certain way, if that's just what people found attractive, there's going to be some intention behind the breeding process.

But I think most mutations aren't going to be intentional, but that certainly doesn't make them random.

You outline it in your first paragraph: hardiness towards certain conditions as they change. That's not luck, the ones that don't develop a certain hardiness over time will die out or be less successful than those that do, that is literally mutations responding to the environment and the rest forms the basis of the natural selection argument.

Here's one for you: Galapagos. Many species in the far-flung and largely untouched Galapagos islands are credited with being some of the least evolved on Earth. Where are the random, unintentional, and unenforced mutations?

 

[Koro_11]

Could you give an example of something other species do that humans don't do; and explain how that sets us apart?

While humans are capable of doing most things that other species do, most humans don't do most of those things.

I'm sure if I told you that a male lion will kill another lion's cubs when they take over the pride, you will point so some psychopath human that did something similar, but the difference is that in the animal world this is the norm, while with our species these are rare psychopathic outliers.

A better question would be if you asked what humans do that animals don't, and that list would be endless.

 

[Andy Capp]

What part of it is nonsensical

The person making that post you quoted.

 

[Rod1]

If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life ...

This is extremely ironic and rich.

If we got to the vulgate latin bible which is the bible that protestants translated over and over again you find the next phrase

contestor ego omni audienti verba prophetiae libri huius si quis adposuerit ad haec adponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro isto

et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de his quae scripta sunt in libro isto

You can go to google translate if you wish but here is what you get

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.

And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city and from the things that are written in this book.

Its funny that in order to justify your own beliefs in Sola Scriptura, protestants who supposedly care about the Bible the most are willing to tamper the Bible and lie about ignoring a literal curse from the book of Apocalypse that warns about adding and removing the wording of the book.

So its clear that protestants don't fear god and are a bunch of grifters, willingly tampering with the Bible they seem to care so much about.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Paul is talking to scriptures taught to Timothy, also there is never a mention of "god-breathed" but god inspired, there is no list of what scriptures Paul taught Timothy and the way in which he was taught.

Sorry bud. If what men say contradict or add to what is written then we go with what is written.... its the entire guide to let us know what is valid. If you are Christian of course

And yet that's exactly what protestants do, they add, take and interpret scriptures the way they want to make a point ignoring all context, predecent and tradition.

Absolutely heretical

 

[Rod1]

2 Timothy 3:16-

2 Peter 1:20-21:
Revelation 22:18-19:
Deuteronomy 4:21

See my response to @Cajun

 

[shockaholic12]

I’m p


If your scenario can only existence in a hypothetical state and fails every time when applied to reality then any conclusion you take from it won’t accurately described anything about reality. So what is the point of these hypotheticals in this discussion?

“Well if we lived in this other fairy tale I made then things would be different so…” so who cares lol?

I just posted that asking whether life has purpose is as nonsensical as asking what color jealousy is. You are assigning a trait to something that doesn’t have any relation to it. That’s a clear answer. How is all this all going over your head?

While humans are capable of doing most things that other species do, most humans don't do most of those things.

I'm sure if I told you that a male lion will kill another lion's cubs when they take over the pride, you will point so some psychopath human that did something similar, but the difference is that in the animal world this is the norm, while with our species these are rare psychopathic outliers.

A better question would be if you asked what humans do that animals don't, and that list would be endless.

In more intelligent and more social species like chimps a strong inclination towards caring for young commonly extends beyond offspring and includes adoption of orphans.

You keep totally ignoring the caring traits of social species.

 

[Motivated BJ Penn]

If you go with an explanation that tries to argue in favor of the Big Bang, then the question remains, where did that energy come from? In physics, there has never been a documented case of something appearing from nothing. No matter how far back you go, there has to be a point of creation somewhere.

The point is, that we don't have the answers. Many cultures and peoples have tried to figure this out and came up with their own theories, but it's all still very much unexplained. A belief in a creator isn't the craziest thing.

The big bang doesnt say that energy came from nothing, all it says is that at the furthest back in time that we can go to via simulation, matter and space time itself was condensed in a tiny area called a singularity and then started expanding.

The theory doesnt say anything about where it came from or what started it, this is a big misconception that creationists often use to discredit it.

Hell the universe could be eternal in a constant state of expansion and contraction for all we know. Maybe it never had a start

 

[Cajun]

This is extremely ironic and rich.

If we got to the vulgate latin bible which is the bible that protestants translated over and over again you find the next phrase

contestor ego omni audienti verba prophetiae libri huius si quis adposuerit ad haec adponet Deus super illum plagas scriptas in libro isto

et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de his quae scripta sunt in libro isto

You can go to google translate if you wish but here is what you get

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.

And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city and from the things that are written in this book.

Its funny that in order to justify your own beliefs in Sola Scriptura, protestants who supposedly care about the Bible the most are willing to tamper the Bible and lie about ignoring a literal curse from the book of Apocalypse that warns about adding and removing the wording of the book.

I did not but included it... what are you talking about.

So its clear that protestants don't fear god and are a bunch of grifters, willingly tampering with the Bible they seem to care so much about.

Incorrect. Fearing God is a must.

Paul is talking to scriptures taught to Timothy, also there is never a mention of "god-breathed" but god inspired, there is no list of what scriptures Paul taught Timothy and the way in which he was taught.

Hes writing a letter to Timothy. God breathed/God inspired is the translation.

And yet that's exactly what protestants do, they add, take and interpret scriptures the way they want to make a point ignoring all context, predecent and tradition.

Absolutely heretical

No that is what hermaneutics and exegesis are for.... which the Catholics also practice...

 

[Cajun]

See my response to @Cajun

Yet you are wrong brotha.

 

[DoctorTaco]

I'm not saying it has no relevance to today of course it does as all Biblical teaching does. But of course using that verse and its context was for the abuses of its day. And of course it's still relevant to giving today, forgiving today and loving today no question. Maybe I'm not exactly sure what exactly this point is referencing. Guns?

Basically- a bunch of professed Christian’s do jack shit to help out when there’s been a mass casualty incident. They just say, “our hearts go out to the families of this tragedy. We will keep them in our thoughts and prayers” instead of doing literally anything of use for the victims and their families

 

[Koro_11]

In more intelligent and more social species like chimps a strong inclination towards caring for young commonly extends beyond offspring and includes adoption of orphans.

You keep totally ignoring the caring traits of social species.

Within their own group, to strengthen their own group, to outnumber the neighbouring group and have a better chance of not getting ripped apart. Animals will do what's best for self preservation and survival, there is no caring or morals involved.

 

[Cajun]

Basically- a bunch of professed Christian’s do jack shit to help out when there’s been a mass casualty incident. They just say, “our hearts go out to the families of this tragedy. We will keep them in our thoughts and prayers” instead of doing literally anything of use for the victims and their families

Help in what sense? Local community churches provide food etc. Im not sure exactly what you want from this? Anyone dies of murder and the local church should be praying/helping. There are 25k murders in the US alone. Many more worldwide. About 52/hr globally

 

[Rod1]

I did not but included it... what are you talking about.

Yes you did, you claimed that John of Patmus was talking about the Bible, when he was talking specifically about the prophecy written in the apocalypse.

Incorrect. Fearing God is a must.

And by god you mean whatever the fuck you want god to be, there is zero thought on studying the Bible when it comes to protestants, they just write whatever the fuck they want and use whatever passage to justify whatever thing you want to justify.

Hes writing a letter to Timothy. God breathed/God inspired is the translation.

Yup and the context of the text is him telling Timothy about using the scriptures he taught Timothy as a tool to teach people, he isn't talking about the Bible and he isn't including the way the scriptures was taught to Timothy either.

No that is what hermaneutics and exegesis are for.... which the Catholics also practice...

And yet here you are, using out of context and badly translated sentences in English to try to prove that Christ always meant for Christianity to be summarized in a book that has been translated many times over.

 

[shockaholic12]

Within their own group, to strengthen their own group, to outnumber the neighbouring group and have a better chance of not getting ripped apart. Animals will do what's best for self preservation and survival, there is no caring or morals involved.

Sure there is, caring for each other can aide survival, avoid risk, and limit suffering as effectively or more than choosing violence in many situations.

It being an overall beneficial preference to the species does not exclude this behavior from being categorized as caring or compassionate.

 

[Cajun]

Yes you did, you claimed that John of Patmus was talking about the Bible, when he was talking specifically about the prophecy written in the apocalypse.

By book and not letter being God inspired it is impossible to tell his true meaning. He couldn't have known that his letter would be included... or did he...

And by god you mean whatever the fuck you want god to be, there is zero thought on studying the Bible when it comes to protestants, they just write whatever the fuck they want and use whatever passage to justify whatever thing you want to justify.

Not true... hard to even touch this. Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth... this verse means you should study.

Yup and the context of the text is him telling Timothy about using the scriptures he taught Timothy as a tool to teach people, he isn't talking about the Bible and he isn't including the way the scriptures was taught to Timothy either.

Of course he is talking about scripture. The question you are asking is if Paul or disciples knew their words were inpired? Without knowing the catholic church as well as Protestants agree that he means all of scripture. What we believe if you are a Christian is that God had the letters in the Bible added as the final word..

And yet here you are, using out of context and badly translated sentences in English to try to prove that Christ always meant for Christianity to be summarized in a book that has been translated many times over.

So then everything is meaningless. If you are atheist then cool. If you arent then you believe the writings of the new testament were meant for a purpose by God. Not even sure you claim Christianity which I get if that's your reference.

Overall...again... hermaneutics and exegesis brotha..

 

[Mr Holmes]

It's more like a misinterpretion of commandments or just the inability to grasp the definition of words. I'm an art aficionado who takes exception to the destruction of cultural heritage. Catholicism is responsible for much of the greatest of it to be found in the history of Western Civilization. Protestantism? Yeah, not so much. I was raised Prot and have Catholic baptized kids, so having very good familiarity with both sides: I'd say the latter is also vastly superior where doctrine and theology are concerned. The evangelical strain of protestantism is a cancer to the United States and a fucking scourge on Christianity as a whole.

I actually went the other way. I was raised Catholic, but have distanced myself due to disagreements with the theology. Plus some of the more severe cases of child abuse makes me think the devil has infiltrated it. Now I find myself worshiping with Lutherans (Missouri Synod not the rainbow one). Which probably fits well with my family's German & Scot-Irish history of coming here and settling down in the mid-west.

 

[Koro_11]

Sure there is, caring for each other can aide survival, avoid risk, and limit suffering as effectively or more than choosing violence in many situations.

It being an overall beneficial preference to the species does not exclude this behavior from being categorized as caring or compassionate.

You keep coming back to the same point which I'm not disagreeing with, and that is the fact that animals will always do what's best for their own survival.

My argument is that humans are the only species that will not only do what's best for their survival, but they will display acts of kindness and compassion even when it has no benefit to themselves... the people who hid Ann Frank in their attic while the Nazis were hunting down Jews didn't do it because it was best for their survival, on the contrary it only put their own survival at risk, yet they risked themselves to help another human being even with nothing to gain.

 

[HereticBD]

“God is all powerful and all knowing, so of course he can make donkeys talk, put a baby in that woman and give the kid magic powers” is honestly a totally acceptable answer in my book. It’s weird when people want to explain away and try to add logic to the mysticism of a religion. Say it with your chest- “magic is real because God supplies it when he so chooses”. Is an honest answer and I’d never give someone shit for saying so.

Why are you leftists so quick to label anyone who doesn't agree with you on these matters, as some kind of religious nut?

I don't know how the universe was created, and neither does anybody else. That's my position. You said "talking donkey". Okay, I raise you "A ball of condensed energy the size of a pinhead, somehow created the entire universe when it exploded".

That second one, is so much more "legit", right? Very science-y. Don't sweat the details too much. A pinhead sized ball of energy exploded and created the universe. End of story. LOL.

 

[shockaholic12]

You keep coming back to the same point which I'm not disagreeing with, and that is the fact that animals will always do what's best for their own survival.

My argument is that humans are the only species that will not only do what's best for their survival, but they will display acts of kindness and compassion even when it has no benefit to themselves... the people who hid Ann Frank in their attic while the Nazis were hunting down Jews didn't do it because it was best for their survival, on the contrary it only put their own survival at risk, yet they risked themselves to help another human being even with nothing to gain.

The point is what is best for their survival or what can best limit suffering amongst the members of their social structure can also categorized as compassionate behavior. You were acting as if compassion being a tool of survival means it’s not compassion anymore which isn’t true.


clearly there’s things to gain. Humans are intelligent enough to be aware of the suffering Anne would receive and by hiding her avoid having to live with that distressing knowledge. They are intelligent enough to know the Germans could lose and those who aided them could receive harsh punishment, which is what happened. By not being an accomplice they could believe they’d have support from others if the nazis came for them. They could believe protecting the nonviolent from the violent would promote a more peaceful and thus safer environment in the long run.

Humans are intelligent enough to become aware of the amount of suffering in the world and be motivated to address it at the cost of risking their lives. That seems to be an instance of awareness of suffering reaching a point it conflicts with the drive to live. I don’t think that’s a selfless relationship.


Also we have a shared understanding that if you cross a bridge everyday and one day come across a person drowning that helping them could benefit you or others you care about who may fall off the bridge someday.