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

[Koro_11]

@Koro_11 don't forget to respond to this.

Scroll up, I did respond.

 

[Koro_11]

Says the dude screeching about drag queens in here lol

Who mentioned "drag queens", I thought it was trans... or are you saying that's the same thing now?

 

[Koro_11]

Where are you getting your definition for a Christian society? And how is that somehow better than the one described in the holy book Christians are supposed to use to guide every aspect of their life?

How can your definition of a Christian society be better than the way the Christians who actually spent time with Jesus chose to live? The way that a divine, all knowing and all powerful holy creator deemed important enough to reach down through the pen of the author through holy inspirationand make sure it was recorded properly for future generations?

Maybe that could be applied back in Jesus' time when the average city's population was a few thousand people, not so much now that we're in the millions and not sharing common values.

Also the book was written by men not God himself, I already said take what is useful and discard what is not.

 

[heloder]

Scroll up, I did respond.

No you didn't. You just ducked it and then went on some tangent about trannies or something. His post very politely dismantles the logic in your argument vis a vis "god", morality, and free will.

 

[Koro_11]

No you didn't. You just ducked it and then went on some tangent about trannies or something. His post very politely dismantles the logic in your argument vis a vis "god", morality, and free will.

How does it do that?

What is my argument?

 

[heloder]

How does it do that?

What is my argument?

Your argument is that "we all intuitively already know what is right".

^--- In this case, then what's the point of the religious teachings that attempt to tell people what is right?

But then you follow it up with "Unfortunately, we don’t ALL know it, but most of us do."

^--- This means that your first statement is false. Either every human is born being able to intuit right from wrong, or every human isn't born that way. If that's the case, then why is that? Why would your god only want some to be born with that trait?

You follow it up with "You can’t have moral without immoral just like without darkness light would have no meaning. Something can only be moral relative to something else, without the immoral, the moral would lose all meaning."

^--- Here you seem to be justifying your god's actions by saying that of course god can't give everybody the innate ability to choose right from wrong, because without evil there is no good. Well if that's true, then god is wholly responsible for evil, and must be by necessity, because without it there can be no good (according to you).

And beyond that, god himself must be evil, because (again, according to you), good can't exist without evil, and according to your religion, there was a time where god was all that did exist. So if he was good, then he must have also been evil.

Furthermore, if you are on the side of good, then that means you must also cherish evil, because without it, there is no good.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Maybe that could be applied back in Jesus' time when the average city's population was a few thousand people, not so much now that we're in the millions and not sharing common values.

Also the book was written by men not God himself, I already said take what is useful and discard what is not.

Athens and Corinth were major cities with far more than “a few thousand people”. Alexandria was second largest city in the world next only to Rome itself. The book of acts is written to tell apostles all over the old world how to live.

God doesn’t want us to live with biblical principles anymore? Intardesting. Why would god give us a playbook if we are supposed to ignore the stuff we don’t like? Why would gods internal moral compass be at odds with his instruction manual?

 

[Koro_11]

Your argument is that "we all intuitively already know what is right".

^--- In this case, then what's the point of the religious teachings that attempt to tell people what is right?

But then you follow it up with "Unfortunately, we don’t ALL know it, but most of us do."

^--- This means that your first statement is false. Either every human is born being able to intuit right from wrong, or every human isn't born that way. If that's the case, then why is that? Why would your god only want some to be born with that trait?

You follow it up with "You can’t have moral without immoral just like without darkness light would have no meaning. Something can only be moral relative to something else, without the immoral, the moral would lose all meaning."

^--- Here you seem to be justifying your god's actions by saying that of course god can't give everybody the innate ability to choose right from wrong, because without evil there is no good. Well if that's true, then god is wholly responsible for evil, and must be by necessity, because without it there can be no good (according to you).

And beyond that, god himself must be evil, because (again, according to you), good can't exist without evil, and according to your religion, there was a time where god was all that did exist. So if he was good, then he must have also been evil.

Furthermore, if you are on the side of good, then that means you must also cherish evil, because without it, there is no good.

Good call, I contradicted myself and instead of saying "we don't all know it", what I should say is we all know it, but not all of us act on it, and not everyone has the willpower to restrain himself from doing the thing that gives him instant gratification.

As for your second point, same thing, we all have the ability to chose right or wrong, some just chose wrong.

As for you last point, this has been discussed to death already, if God is so good then why is there evil at all, and why do the innocent suffer, and why do children sometimes get cancer, etc... Again, I think that God set the world into motion, but he's not there to auto correct every wrong that humans chose to do.


As for that other dude, I didn't bother giving him a serious reply or even thoroughly reading what his argument was because he hasn't been arguing in good faith, he pretended to at first but then turned into some game of "gotcha" and ad hominem attacks which I'm not really in the mood for on this thread. Also I thought it was funny when he brought up words like logic while he's known to defend the idea that a man becomes a woman simply by saying he's one etc... so I kinda stooped to his level and instead of seriously arguing the points I guess we're now in a pissing contest.

I know you're on his side, but at least you came with a coherent critique of my position so fair enough, not like I have all the answers of like I'm the most well prepared person to defend every Bible passage. My position is basically that I'm agnostic and don't claim to know anything, but between the big bang for no reason and creator with a purpose arguments I chose creator with a purpose because I find it gives more meaning to my life. As for Christianity, I can't help but notice that of all the religions on offer, the places that follow the teachings of Christ tend to be the most prosperous, the most tolerant and the best functioning societies and family units.

 

[Koro_11]

Athens and Corinth were major cities with far more than “a few thousand people”. Alexandria was second largest city in the world next only to Rome itself. The book of acts is written to tell apostles all over the old world how to live.

God doesn’t want us to live with biblical principles anymore? Intardesting. Why would god give us a playbook if we are supposed to ignore the stuff we don’t like? Why would gods internal moral compass be at odds with his instruction manual?

Jesus grew up in Nazareth which had less than a thousand people, I don't think he's ever been to Athens, and it's not like he could just look it up on the internet back then.

Anyway, you're really getting into the weeds here trying to get me to defend every passage in the Bible as if it was written by God himself. I already told you to take what's useful and discard what is useless, my argument was never that the Bible was without contradictions or that it was some perfect playbook. My argument was simply that of all the religions on offer, Christianity has proven to be the most fruitful one for society, but that's not to say it doesn't have it's faults.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Jesus grew up in Nazareth which had less than a thousand people, I don't think he's ever been to Athens, and it's not like he could just look it up on the internet back then.

I want to make sure I understand you clearly, so a review of your points as I understand them:

-you’re a theist who believes in a divine creator that gave us an inborn and universal understanding of right and wrong.

-you believe that countries which are governed by Christian principles or are full of Christian people run better than those which don’t.

-the Bible is not holy scripture passed down by God.

-Jesus was just a dude with some pretty cool ideas.

-people should pick and choose what they want to follow out of the Bible.

-societies should pick and choose what they want to follow out of the Bible.

Yeah? No snark or traps there, I just what to make sure I really follow where you’re coming from.

Though I’m starting to think maybe you haven’t actually read the Bible. Jesus being raised in Nazareth has nothing to do with the book of acts or how the early Christians were instructed to live and offer ministry in the major old world cities they lived in and traveled between.

yes, we can take what we want out of the Bible and apply it to our life or society and throw the rest out. That’s gonna be true for literally any text, religious or otherwise.

 

[Scott Stapp]

Your point? We never heard of the code of Hammurabi when our laws were written.

Btw, the Code of Hammurabi openly said the more important you were the less severe the punishment should be especially if the victim was from a low social class.

We stopped writing laws?

 

[Koro_11]

I want to make sure I understand you clearly, so a review of your points as I understand them:

-you’re a theist who believes in a divine creator that gave us an inborn and universal understanding of right and wrong.

-you believe that countries which are governed by Christian principles or are full of Christian people run better than those which don’t.

-the Bible is not holy scripture passed down by God.

-Jesus was just a dude with some pretty cool ideas.

-people should pick and choose what they want to follow out of the Bible.

-societies should pick and choose what they want to follow out of the Bible.

Yeah? No snark or traps there, I just what to make sure I really follow where you’re coming from.

Though I’m starting to think maybe you haven’t actually read the Bible. Jesus being raised in Nazareth has nothing to do with the book of acts or how the early Christians were instructed to live and offer ministry in the major old world cities they lived in and traveled between.

yes, we can take what we want out of the Bible and apply it to our life or society and throw the rest out. That’s gonna be true for literally any text, religious or otherwise.

-yes

-yes

-no it's a book written by men and it's full of wisdom that transcends time, as well as some outdated stuff that doesn't apply in the modern world and some crazy stuff that probably never applies

-I don't know if he was "just a dude", but he had some great ideas

-it's pretty self evident what parts of the Bible are worth following and what parts are not

-same as above

I've read parts of it, not nearly enough to be the person to explain or defend every passage in it, again a book written by men, as for your example of instructions for early Christians, like I said some of it doesn't apply in today's society, and some of it never should have applied.

 

[DoctorTaco]

-yes

-yes

-no it's a book written by men and it's full of wisdom that transcends time, as well as some outdated stuff that doesn't apply in the modern world and some crazy stuff that probably never applies

-I don't know if he was "just a dude", but he had some great ideas

-it's pretty self evident what parts of the Bible are worth following and what parts are not

-same as above

I've read parts of it, not nearly enough to be the person to explain or defend every passage in it, again a book written by men, as for your example of instructions for early Christians, like I said some of it doesn't apply in today's society, and some of it never should have applied.

So if the Bible isn’t special and neither was Jesus, why should we apply their teachings to our governance and our lives? What makes them so special as to be the ones that you choose of every other guru, philosopher, or religious text?

 

[Koro_11]

So if the Bible isn’t special and neither was Jesus, why should we apply their teachings to our governance and our lives? What makes them so special as to be the ones that you choose of every other guru, philosopher, or religious text?

You're putting words in my mouth, never said the Bible wasn't special, and I certainly never said that Jesus wasn't special.

And as I already pointed out, the proof is right in front of your eyes, you just chose not to see it because you insist on being a moral relativist. But if you ranked every single country on earth in order of places you would most like to live to places you would least like to live, the top 50 countries would all be ones where Christianity is the predominant religion (with Japan being the one exception that i agree with you on).

 

[DoctorTaco]

You're putting words in my mouth, never said the Bible wasn't special, and I certainly never said that Jesus wasn't special.

And as I already pointed out, the proof is right in front of your eyes, you just chose not to see it because you insist on being a moral relativist. But if you ranked every single country on earth in order of places you would most like to live to places you would least like to live, the top 50 countries would all be ones where Christianity is the predominant religion (with Japan being the one exception that i agree with you on).

OK, then, why is the Bible special? Why was Jesus special?

I don’t understand the point of believing nations were Christianity is prevalent or inherently better when Christianity isn’t used in governance and certainly isn’t prevalent in the lives of their average person. Our president is one of the most un-Christian human beings to hold office yet somehow we are a Christian nation? I don’t see it.

 

[Koro_11]

OK, then, why is the Bible special? Why was Jesus special?

I don’t understand the point of believing nations were Christianity is prevalent or inherently better when Christianity isn’t used in governance and certainly isn’t prevalent in the lives of their average person. Our president is one of the most un-Christian human beings to hold office yet somehow we are a Christian nation? I don’t see it.

If you refuse to see it I can’t make you see it, but it’s pretty obvious. Even if it supposedly isn’t used in governance the people who wrote the laws and created the system of governance happened to be Christians. Coincidence? Maybe, but that’s some coincidence… believe what you want tho.

 

[Andy Capp]

-yes

-yes

-no it's a book written by men and it's full of wisdom that transcends time, as well as some outdated stuff that doesn't apply in the modern world and some crazy stuff that probably never applies

-I don't know if he was "just a dude", but he had some great ideas

-it's pretty self evident what parts of the Bible are worth following and what parts are not

-same as above

I've read parts of it, not nearly enough to be the person to explain or defend every passage in it, again a book written by men, as for your example of instructions for early Christians, like I said some of it doesn't apply in today's society, and some of it never should have applied.

LMAO @ all this proselytizing and following that, after you have been caught spewing illogical blather, with "I've read parts of it..."

But at least you finally admitted that as usual you have no idea what you're talking about, so props for that.

 

[helltoupee]

Your argument is that "we all intuitively already know what is right".

^--- In this case, then what's the point of the religious teachings that attempt to tell people what is right?

But then you follow it up with "Unfortunately, we don’t ALL know it, but most of us do."

^--- This means that your first statement is false. Either every human is born being able to intuit right from wrong, or every human isn't born that way. If that's the case, then why is that? Why would your god only want some to be born with that trait?

You follow it up with "You can’t have moral without immoral just like without darkness light would have no meaning. Something can only be moral relative to something else, without the immoral, the moral would lose all meaning."

^--- Here you seem to be justifying your god's actions by saying that of course god can't give everybody the innate ability to choose right from wrong, because without evil there is no good. Well if that's true, then god is wholly responsible for evil, and must be by necessity, because without it there can be no good (according to you).

And beyond that, god himself must be evil, because (again, according to you), good can't exist without evil, and according to your religion, there was a time where god was all that did exist. So if he was good, then he must have also been evil.

Furthermore, if you are on the side of good, then that means you must also cherish evil, because without it, there is no good.

Your post sounds similar to that old paradox by Epicurus:

​

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

 

[shockaholic12]

Who mentioned "drag queens", I thought it was trans... or are you saying that's the same thing now?

You did when you brought up “the position that a man puts on a dress and becomes a woman” which is called drag dummy.

Which is a topic that has fuck all to the do with the Big Bang or anything else being described here, so you bringing it up erroneously makes me think you might be wearing your moms heels while posting.

Good call, I contradicted myself and instead of saying "we don't all know it", what I should say is we all know it, but not all of us act on it, and not everyone has the willpower to restrain himself from doing the thing that gives him instant gratification.

As for your second point, same thing, we all have the ability to chose right or wrong, some just chose wrong.

As for you last point, this has been discussed to death already, if God is so good then why is there evil at all, and why do the innocent suffer, and why do children sometimes get cancer, etc... Again, I think that God set the world into motion, but he's not there to auto correct every wrong that humans chose to do.


As for that other dude, I didn't bother giving him a serious reply or even thoroughly reading what his argument was because he hasn't been arguing in good faith, he pretended to at first but then turned into some game of "gotcha" and ad hominem attacks which I'm not really in the mood for on this thread. Also I thought it was funny when he brought up words like logic while he's known to defend the idea that a man becomes a woman simply by saying he's one etc... so I kinda stooped to his level and instead of seriously arguing the points I guess we're now in a pissing contest.

I know you're on his side, but at least you came with a coherent critique of my position so fair enough, not like I have all the answers of like I'm the most well prepared person to defend every Bible passage. My position is basically that I'm agnostic and don't claim to know anything, but between the big bang for no reason and creator with a purpose arguments I chose creator with a purpose because I find it gives more meaning to my life. As for Christianity, I can't help but notice that of all the religions on offer, the places that follow the teachings of Christ tend to be the most prosperous, the most tolerant and the best functioning societies and family units.

I successfully broke down your logical flaws point by point as a few others like this dude pointed out to you and I’ve been posting the definitions of words you’ve misused like “caring” and you got emotional and screeched about space ships and drag queens. Now you’re back tracking.

lol who isn’t arguing in good faith? Are the drag queens on the space ship?

But it’s not working because this logic has the same flaw too, you’ve just kicked the can down the road again by saying “ok they all have the compass but now they all don’t have ….the willpower to follow it”.

Well if the creator is the one designing us and selecting some of us to lack the willpower to do what is right while select others are designed with more willpower then it’s still the choice of this creator for some of us to be destined to be immoral. You’ve only added an extra step, after having the compass that the creator now needs to be designing use to follow it too. That still leads to the creator being the root of evil as they have chosen to allow some of it’s designs to lack willpower to do what is right. So you can’t judge me for it you can only judge the creator.

 

[DoctorTaco]

the people who wrote the laws and created the system of governance happened to be Christians.

In all 50 countries you were referring the founders were practicing devout Christians?! And they didn’t want to create a theocracy? Certainly not America- the majority of the guys who drafted our founding documents were theistic rationalists.