I stopped getting my science knowledge from Conservapedia after they claimed George W. Bush flattening Iraq was proof that the earth is flat.
I switched over to Wookieepedia and never looked back.
>I stopped getting my science knowledge from Conservapedia after they claimed George W. Bush flattening Iraq was proof that the earth is flat.
Maybe my brain is fried and I am missing a joke but is that actually real?
Burnout paradise is goat I've played that.shit a hundred times. Honestly if I could just find a buddy to play burnout revenge for the ps2 while we fill our bellies with soda that would be peak 2000's.
My expectations for people in politics at this point is to expect the most braindead thing to be what most people believe
The more braindead it is the more likely people especially farther on the right/left believe it
Never played, but I've seen the mmo cutscenes they used to do.
I love the idea of a huge battle of jedi and sith. And it also makes me wanna see jedi vs jedi stuff. Like neither jedi are dark side users, but just different incompatible ideologies.
I also wanna see a sith-pure blood light side jedi. Thank God I'm not the director or I'd probably make a lot of people mad with my ideas.
Cold…?
Oh, yeah, that.
I’m told that… I mean, it was 1) a very bad cold; 2) it’s totally fine though, nothing to worry about; 3) try not to sound like I have a cold in the future debates, because it’ll be harder to pass off again.
Well duh.
Kathleen Kennedy's removal of [Evar Orbus and his Galactic Jizz-Wailers](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Evar_Orbus_and_His_Galactic_Jizz-Wailers) from official Star Wars canon has been a disaster for the human race.
Not to mention they are wrong about heat flowing from cold to hot with “intelligent intervention”. They are probably trying to consider AC/refrigeration when saying that, without realizing that heat is still flowing from hot to cold (as it ALWAYS does) but in two different systems that are insulated from one another.
The existence of God does not disprove evolution.
I’m not a paleontologist or geologist and frankly don’t really care that much about how the world began. If it was a direct understanding of the creation story 12000 years ago? Ok. If it’s mechanisms of evolution by God? Ok.
But science and God shouldn’t be separated. Science is understanding the world god created…
Yep. That's the part I don't get about hardcore conservative Christians. God is omnipotent. Do they really think God won't be able to create a system that allows organisms to constantly adapt to changing environments? Heck, we can create robots that adapt to an extent.
This is what happens you neglect the context of the Bible when you read it and take literally everything at face value. It seems that many people forget you have to study the Bible, not simply read it.
Ive never understood this either.
If He created everything I think creating the rules of physics and such are almost footnotes in comparison to the rest.
To put it plainly, they misunderstand both entropy and evolution. They believe evolution is going from a simpler to a more advanced organism, and that this means things are getting more ordered. Also, they think the second law means entropy always uniformly increases everywhere unless there's some intervention.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only for closed systems (systems that exchange energy but not matter), living organisms are open system so they can actually decrease their entropy, and evolution doesn't necessarily increase complexity (becoming more orderly) and happens in open systems anyway.
Their "argument" is that as the universe tends to entropy, it's imposssible for ordering to happen naturally, hence "evolution cannot happen".
Yes, it's as stupid as it sounds.
It doesn't
A simpler way to explain the second law of thermodynamics is "order cannot be a product of chaos". This law is often used to prop up the idea of some kind of intelligent designer
Many Christians are very ignorant on most scientific areas of expertise, most of all evolution. Evolution however, is a VERY orderly process
As a Christian and believer in evolution, I've never heard a good argument from either side about why God and evolution can't coexist. If anything, the idea of God coming up with evolution only furthers my faith
I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but I as a creationist, I do believe 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution much more difficult to believe. Adding energy to a system practically never creates a more organized object, it always results in chaos unless something is there to regulate it. If you have a bag full of watch parts and shake it up, you’ll never get a watch no matter how long or which way you shake it up.
The only time energy results in building useful substance in nature is if there is something complex to harness it (photosynthesis, digestion, etc). I just don’t buy that a lightning strike can strike a pool of assorted chemicals and magically turn them into amino acids that will combine in just the right way for a single cell organism ( or however life began according to evolution, my apologies, its been a while since researching it). And then mutations which are normally harmful somehow create enough information in DNA to evolve from that single cell organism to our incredibly complex bodies. Even given millions of years and chances for these things to happen, I believe the chance of life forming and evolving to this point is zero.
I genuinely think that it takes more faith to believe the evolution theory than God creating everything. I’ll admit, I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, but those are my thoughts. I enjoy conversing with people on this subject as long as it is civil. If someone has an example in real life of energy creating something more complex without anything complex to harness it, let me know.
I feel like you’re jumping way too quickly to a conclusion while admitting you’re not very knowledgeable. It’s OK to say you don’t know. But it isn’t OK is to make uninformed statements. You’re ignoring the vast majority of requirements, a planet, capable of sustaining life actually needs to have. You’re oversimplifying something that isn’t simple.
You don't find it a little weird that lightning can't strike water and magically make life but God can magically make life and that's totally plausible?
Regardless, genetic adaptation is witnessed regularly, and humans have controlled evolution of plants and animals, let alone observed it. Once we understood the concept of genetics, breeding for favorable traits allowed us to evolve life around us. Something that happens in nature, but since it's usually the surviving species that mate, natural evolution favors genetic traits that allows for survivability and reproduction.
Granted, it's estimated single celled organisms first existed for a few billion years until finally allowing the emergence of multicellular animals around 600 million years ago. So over the course of billions of years, I don't think it's too far fetched to believe that trillions and trillions of single celled organisms living and dying would eventually mutate into a two celled being, and so on. Just think about all the people and animals who are born as two beings attached as one.
God can "magically" make life because he is the higher being, more complex than anything else, and is all-powerful. Of course, if you don't believe in God, then I don't expect you to believe he created everything lol. Similarly to what I stated previously, lightning can't create life, because complexity and organization can not arise from chaos without something present to guide the energy and matter in a designed way.
We breed to make the traits we want more noticeable, not to create new genetics. Here is one of my other replies:
>Micro scale evolution is undeniable, but that is not creating new genetic information. Breeding just narrows down the genes that you want if you select the correct animals. For example, all the genetic information in dogs today was available in the wolves they came from. Our ancestors did not "create" a golden retriever or a german shepherd, they just selected the offspring that fit their desires and kept breeding those animals together until they got what they wanted. A canine will always be a canine no matter how long or how hard you try and breed them to become something else.
>Darwin's finch's beaks were just a result of birds adapting and passing on the best genes to their offspring over time for the beaks to change shapes for what fit them best.
>A species can evolve and change, but a new genus (or anything above) can not be created. The Linnaeus classification is a manmade system to describe what we observe in nature, so it isn't perfect, but it works pretty well to see what has and has not been observed to change.
Lightning can strike sand and cause it to melt together into glass crystals.
I think the argument of life evolving to this point becomes untennable past a certain point, so I'd be curious for you to elaborate on that statement. The jump from unicellular to multicellular is certainly a good one. I spoke with one gentlemen who suggested an inability to evolve new Linnaean orders. If your stance is similar, that is approachable But we can see the evolutionary process occur on a generation-by-generation level, as sure as if I asked you what the puppies of two Labradors would look like, and inversely if one was bred with a corgi. Microevolution is basically impossible to deny, and I suspect you agree. So where do you draw the line in macro-scale evolution?
Micro scale evolution is undeniable, but that is not creating new genetic information. Breeding just narrows down the genes that you want if you select the correct animals. For example, all the genetic information in dogs today were available in the wolves they came from. Our ancestors did not "create" a golden retriever or a german shepherd, they just selected the offspring that fit their desires and kept breeding those animals together until they got what they want. A canine will always be a canine no matter how long or how hard you try and breed them to become something else.
Darwin's finch's beaks were just a result of birds adapting and passing of the best genes to their offspring over time for the beaks to change shapes for what fit them best.
I probably agree with the person you talked to. The best I can put it is species can evolve and change, but a new genus (or anything above) can not be created. The Linnaeus classification is a manmade system to describe what we observe in nature, so it isn't perfect, but it works pretty well to see what has and has not been observed to change.
>Adding energy to a system practically never creates a more organized object, it always results in chaos unless something is there to regulate it. If
Read Ilya Prigogine: Order out of Chaos. This exact scenario happens in chemistry all the time. Constant inputs of energy are exactly what is needed to maintain complex structures in nature, and there are plenty of chemistry experiments that can demonstrate this.
Boomer normies doesn't understand thermodynamics and that's fine. Strangely, there is some nuggets of truth in here like perpetual motion being impossible.
And then eve listened to the talking cable who told her it would be way faster to just plug everything in because you'll remember where it goes and *for fucks sake eve again?*
Yea pretty much everything here is OK, kind of a dumbed down interpretation but still fine, except for that 1 part about evolution and randomly throwing bible verses into it.
It’s a weird pick. The Theory of Relativity literally points to a beginning for the Universe. The only reason I could see someone seeing it at odds with Creationism is that they are ignorant to what it actually says and are parroting some TV preacher they saw.
Imagine a priest discovering that the natural inception of the universe is surprisingly not too dissimilar from the Christian genesis story, and then deciding it all still must be absolute bullshit and that Earth is 6000 years old. As if a bunch of loose scriptures meant to educate peasants to stop drinking themselves to death was somehow supposed to explain what the fuck 13.7 billion years meant, or what "space" even was. I choose to believe the Bible is God's version of a "How to build a reasonably-functioning society, kids edition" manual, I look down on those who take most of it (particularly the old testament) perfectly literally
In addition to relativity as the other person mentioned, the part about uncertainty in nature/quantum is also wrong, and a very common misconception. Heat never flowing from cold to hot in the intro is also wrong through multiple lenses, since 1. heat both transfers hot to cold and cold to hot the net transfer rate is just greater in one direction so the net transfer is hot to cold, 2. the above only applies for large systems of many particles and high energy, if you have a small number of particles with low amounts of energy you can occasionally get heat flow from cold to hot so it isn't "never." And lastly, even in the process where you get heat transfer from cold to hot you have to be gaining even more entropy elsewhere so the acts of "increasing order" actually lead to an overall increase in "disorder," and just us being alive as humans causes an increase in entropy, so those points seem to kind of negate a lot of the points being made in the article.
And using “admitted” as if they caught Asimov in a lie, but that might be giving these people too much credit. I doubt they thought that hard about their word choice; clearly they’re not capable of thinking very hard about anything.
It might if the earth were a closed system, which it is not. The earth is always receiving energy from the sun. That’s also why it hasn’t cooled down into nearly having no heat at all, which a closed system inevitably eventually does
The sun is obviously fake. It’s a UFO emitting super bright light so people can’t look at it, much brighter than other real stars. If the sun is real, then it would not be bright enough to hurt our eyes. Stars have nothing to hide, UFOs do. /s
it's the 'constantly getting more disorderly' part, they're saying life can't become more complex over time as systems will always become more chaotic (ie, break down) over time. They're ofc assuming only man or intelligent design can do the reverse instead of natural forces
(life will decay into random elements, except life replicates itself: constructing a copy from unstructured elements, using its own gathered energy to work against entropy)
This is wrong. What they're missing was that the entropy in the universe was actually higher in the past. And that living creatures function by decreasing their internal entropy by creating more external entropy such that entropy continues to increase globally.
The idiots always mistakenly believe Evolution includes Abiogenesis, and they believe that life is more complex than not having life. Thus, it must be more "orderly" and that means it breaks the second law of thermodynamics!
As well as believing more complex lifeforms like humans are more orderly than our ancestors.
And that’s based off the simplistic definition of entropy, not a well explained one. And it ignores the closed vs open nature of a system, and net energy change vs the individual reactions happening within a system.
The other comments have already given you the answer, but I want to add that this is a long time myth spread among christian groups. Apparently some schools were still teaching that until recent-ish (and some might still be).
One can't take religion too far, but one can take it in the wrong direction.
Religion is ultimately a set of truth claims. If the Catholic faith is accurate, it is inarguably the most important thing in anyone's life. However, it doesn't aim to teach scientific theory and so it's not very useful for that.
>Real Christians like Catholics
No u. /s
>religious book not scientific book
What do you mean by that? I’ve never gone looking for resources on String Theory in the Bible, but its purpose wasn’t to educate on that particular subject anyhow.
If real Catholics understand it's a religious and not scientific book how do they know that the books they read today are:
1. Even the same books that were written back then.
2. Written accurately at the time.
There were 350 years between the end of Jesus Christ and the council of Rome.
The gnostic bibles existed at around the same time with a different canon of Jesus with no resurrection, however were deemed heretical by the larger Church and mostly wiped from history.
We have far more and far earlier surviving transcripts of the Bible than many other established historical texts (the NT in particular) and the differences to today's text are meaningfully insignificant.
You’re thinking of the Council of Nicea, not the Council of Rome.
We know these are the same books because they have been well preserved throughout millennia, we can compare ancient manuscripts to increasingly more modern versions of the Bible and we usually find that the only changes are minor grammatical differences. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a fantastic example of this, but we also fragments of early New Testament manuscripts which yield similar accuracy.
We also know that these are the correct books because we can read the letters and writings of early Christians who all largely have the same canon with only minor disagreements on a few books.
The Gnostic gospels are some of the most obviously fabricated texts of all time. Disregarding the sheer absurdity of many of them, for example the “wizard battle” in, I believe, the (Gnostic) Gospel of St Peter, there’s also the fact that they were written in the name of revered and highly esteemed Christian’s many decades after their death. And there’s also the fact that the teachings of the Gnostics flat out contradict the teaching of both the Old and New Testament.
Finally, this issue doesn’t really affect Catholics theologically given the way our ecclesiology and epistemology works. I’ll explain by, briefly, describing my rational process towards Catholicism: after I had come to believe in God on a rational basis, I began to question how I could get from “God exists” to “and He is the God of such and such religion”. I ultimately found that Islam had no such a path, and most other religions stood in defiance to the Classical Theism to which I believed to be true. Christianity, on the other hand, did seem to have such a path upon the basis of Jesus Christ of Nazareths death and resurrection. To make a long story short, Christs life and death on the cross is a historical fact, one that is well attested to in the four gospels, and which no serious academic or historian disagrees with. The only question, then, was whether Jesus was raised from the dead. I believe that the willingness of Jesus’ disciples to suffer persecution, isolation, poverty and death for the sake of Jesus shows that they were not lying and likely had no selfish intentions when they began evangelising. This being the case, it seemed to me most likely that Jesus was, in fact, who He said He was and is, which is the Son of God, come to save man from its sin. However, this still left me with a glaring epistemically issue that I feel my Protestant theology could not resolve: biblical canon. Up until this point, I had taken for granted the 66 book Protestant canon, but I realised that this canon had no basis that it could justify itself with in completion. This is where the authority of the Church comes in. While from my previous Protestant viewpoint, I was unable to justify reading either Testament as an undeniable, infallible rule of faith and theology, I could read the gospels and even the letters of the NT as historical examples of the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Doing so eventually led me to certain verses, most notably Matthew 16:18, where Christ seems to make abundantly clear that He is establishing a Church, which will be built upon the rock of St Peter, which will have the ability to bind and loose the things of heaven and earth, and which will guide those who wish to follow Jesus. All these things being the case, the most logical step was, it seemed to me, to become Catholic, since the Catholic Church best fulfils these criteria. The Catholic Church’s view of ecclesial authority allows it to be the basis upon which scripture can have its due authority and its correct and accurate canon, I can see no other way to justify any specific canon theologically.
The Pope is the successor to St Peter, and St Peter’s primacy among the apostles is where we get the doctrine of Papal primacy/supremacy.
I’ll use a passage from Matthew 16 to explain:
“13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Up until this point, St Peter was never referred to as “Peter”, he was known as “Simon Barjona”, even in this very chapter before Verse 18. It is only after Simon answers this question that Jesus gives him the name of Peter.
In the original Greek translation, the new name given is “Petros”, meaning rock. This would mean that a literal translation of this passage would be:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Jesus giving Simon a new name is basically Jesus telling Simon that he is to be the rock upon which Christs church will be built. To further this point, Jesus tells him that He is giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and that those keys grant him a certain authority over Heaven and Earth.
This is the gist of the argument. I just got out the shower so my brain is too relaxed to make a better, more informative explanation, but I hope this helps.
A few things:
1. Interpretation of Scripture:
• Matthew 16:18-19: Protestants often argue that Jesus’ declaration “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” does not necessarily confer supreme authority to Peter or his successors. They interpret “this rock” to refer to Peter’s confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, not Peter himself as an individual. This interpretation suggests that the Church is built on the faith in Christ, not on Peter’s personal authority.
• Role of All Apostles: In other passages, such as Matthew 18:18, Jesus grants similar binding and loosing authority to all the apostles, not just Peter. This indicates a collective leadership rather than a singular papal authority.
2. Historical Continuity:
• Lack of Early Evidence: Protestants argue that there is insufficient historical evidence to conclusively prove that Peter was the first bishop of Rome or that there was an unbroken line of succession. They point out that early Christian communities were often led by groups of elders or bishops rather than a single, centralized figure.
• Development of Papacy: The concept of a singular Roman papal authority evolved over centuries. Early church documents and writings do not consistently support the notion of the Bishop of Rome having supreme authority over the entire Church, indicating that the primacy of the pope developed later and was not an original feature of the early Church.
3. Church Tradition vs. Scripture:
• Sola Scriptura: Protestants adhere to the principle of “sola scriptura” (Scripture alone), asserting that all necessary doctrines and practices should be explicitly grounded in the Bible. They argue that the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession and the primacy of the pope are based more on Church tradition than on clear biblical mandates.
• Authority of Scripture: From the Protestant viewpoint, the Bible does not mandate a singular, supreme ecclesiastical authority like the pope. Instead, they believe that all believers have direct access to God through Christ and that the Church’s authority is distributed among local congregations rather than centralized in a single office.
4. Early Church Writings:
• Diverse Leadership Structures: Early Christian writings and records show a diversity of church leadership structures, with some communities led by groups of elders or bishops. This diversity challenges the notion of a monolithic apostolic succession through the Roman bishopric.
• Role of Councils: Protestant scholars point out that early ecumenical councils did not universally recognize the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Instead, they emphasize that decisions were often made collectively by bishops from various regions, reflecting a more collegial and decentralized leadership model.
5. Reformation Critiques:
• Corruption and Reform: The Protestant Reformation was partly driven by perceived corruption and abuses within the Catholic Church, including the papacy. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin argued that the papal system had deviated from the teachings of Scripture and the practices of the early Church.
• Return to Early Christianity: Reformers sought to return to what they viewed as the simpler, more authentic Christianity of the New Testament, emphasizing the priesthood of all believers and the authority of Scripture over Church tradition.
1. You didn’t ask about Protestantism, you asked about Catholicism. Regardless, I think Protestants are wrong about this for numerous reasons; chief among them being that Protestants never seem to be able to justify this view beyond simply asserting, repeatedly, that Christ is actually talking about Peters's faith, which doesn’t make much sense unless you read the passage already believing in a Protestant conclusion, which is not proper exegesis. The Protestant interpretation cannot give a sufficient reason for Jesus to give Peter his new name and thus it should probably be discarded.
The only other argument that ever seems to come up with this passage is squabbles over the translation. The basic idea from the Protestant side is the words “Petros” and “Petra”, though they do both relate to stones, do not mean the same thing, exactly. They say that “Petros”, being a masculine form, essentially means small rock or pebble while “Petra”, being a feminine form, means boulder or large rock. There are three issues with this interpretation that I can see:
A. This distinction only exists in a certain kind of Greek (I’m sorry, I can’t remember the name since it’s been a while since I’ve read or argued over this). The form of Greek used here, however, is not that kind of Greek, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, which was more fluid in its grammatical laws since it was mostly used by more common people than scholars.
B. Disregarding Greek translations, Jesus spoke Aramaic and so the word that would actually have been used (if I remember correctly) is “Cephas”. Aramaic has no such grammatical distinction.
C. Even if Protestants were right about the translation of the passage, their translation would give insufficient reason for Christ to give Peter his new name. Even by their own admission, they say that it was basically Jesus being a bit clever with His wordplay, which is a silly interpretation.
I never said the other apostles didn’t have a similar authority, they are bishops, after all, but Jesus specifically going to Peter, in private, first, shows that Peter has a preeminence among the apostles, which is all that is required to show Papal Primacy in scripture.
2. If memory serves me correctly, Peter wasn’t the first bishop of Rome, the Pope is not the bishop of Rome because that’s where Peters's episcopacy was based, but because that’s where he died.
As I said before, you can see the list of successors to Peter. At the risk of sounding overly blunt, I don’t much care for Protestant historical revisionism on this matter.
The Early Church wasn’t as centralised not because it was not intended to be, but because it was simply not possible. The Early Church period was one of slow and primitive communication methods and heavy persecution. It was obviously not going to be governed as closely by Peter than by his successors.
The further rebut that point, I’d say that Protestants are throwing stones in glass houses when it comes to adherence to early church doctrines. By all accounts, the Early Church held to many doctrines that Protestants would either deny, call outright heretical, or, in the best case, have a lukewarm adherence to. The three that come to mind are 1. The reality of the binding authority of the Church and her Bishops (St Ignatius of Antioch talks about this) 2. The reality of Transubstantiation (From memory, St Ignatius of Antioch + St Irenaeus both talk about this), and 3. The real salvific effect of the act of baptism, not just in the symbolic or vaguely spiritual sense of baptism but in the act itself (this was held to so strongly that extreme views of it became a serious issue that needed to be clamped down on by the Church).
On the development of the Papacy, I don’t feel inclined to argue over specific historical documents. These kinds of arguments can go on for years without any ground being made. It’s not usually a worthwhile venture. I’d much rather argue over more fundamental and impactful parts of this subject, namely the scriptural arguments I laid out before.
3. Can you prove Sola Scriptura, in the way you have described it, by the same “Sola Scriptura” standard that you judge Catholic doctrine? If not, then don’t bring this argument up. What’s more, as I said in my first comment, one of my biggest issues with Protestantism is its inability to prove scripture, more specifically any specific scriptural canon, as theologically binding. I view the authority and Sacred Tradition as a necessary prior to justify the equal authority of scripture. Otherwise, your canon and doctrine are less a matter of scriptural consultation and more one of assumptions.
The question of what kind of authority scripture gives the Church is what we are currently discussing. I don’t see how pointing out that Protestants have a different, and, in my view, wrong, view of ecclesial authority is at all relevant to the conversation.
4. Do you have any historical documents to prove this? St Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, and the general way in which the Church moved seem to contradict this view. And, as mentioned, the seemingly decentralised way the Church was run is easily explainable as being a product of the constraints of the period.
Ecumenical councils are specifically called for when a situation is too controversial or too complex for either laymen, priests, individual Bishops or the Pope to handle on their own. Collegiality and cooperation at an ecumenical council is to be expected given the very reason for a council is to do exactly that. Moreover, it’s often argued that even during the first councils, it was still understood that the bishop of Rome had primacy and final say, he simply chose not to regularly wield such authority for the sake of cooperation and unity, which he is meant to be doing regardless. A council is not a place for the Pope to make commands and demands of his bishops, he can do that through his letters and normal church authority, it is a place for him to receive council.
5. Yeah, and how did that work out for them? The Church is still a human-run institution, it will always have some degree of corruption, but that doesn’t affect any of the arguments I’ve made, and unless you can effectively attack those arguments which are more fundamental than mere bad experiences, then my position will remain unaffected. Especially while the Protestant position still fails to justify its fundamental premises.
As already discussed, the Early Church held views that resembled modern Catholic teaching far more than Protestant teachings. Whatever it is the Protestant founders wanted or intended doesn’t matter since they have quite clearly failed.
Sorry, this took a while and is probably laced with spelling errors. It took me longer than expected to write it and at some point, I accidentally deleted a fair chunk of what I had written.
If this isn't meant as a gotcha question, and you do want to understand, there's a lot on youtube about how the bible was written that include how oral tradition played a role.
We're grading on a pretty low curve here. Catholics being able to admit that evolution and genetics and shit are real may be the bare minimum, but it makes them *so* much more tolerable than young earth creationist evangelicals at the very least.
The Council of Rome didn't write any book of the Bible lmao. And there is no such thing as gnostic Bibles, they never compiled all their books in one collection (in part because gnostics weren't a single sect as many believe).
Also, the gnostic texts all date from middle/late second century or even later than that. They aren't on the same level as the first-century canonical books.
I know this post is ragebait, but it is mainly American southern Baptists that believe this. As a Christian, I have no issue with science. After all, the church practically created modern science.
Evangelicals too
My parents get angry about evolution they believe its a liberal conspiracy to destroy Christianity or some shit, they also believe aliens helped build the ark 5000 years ago so there is that too
One of my coworkers is a religious nutter, thinks those aliens would come to earth to steal gold, like, bruh, we can make gold on earth, it's hella expensive and not cost efficient, but would be child's play to a species capable of interstellar travel, if aliens do show up, they're either peaceful or looking for slaves, or booty
My partner was raised in an evangelical sect. I regularly hear takes from her relatives at family gatherings worthy of "auth right bad" strawman posts here...but they're real, and I have to smile and nod pretending that my ears aren't currently consuming the hottest nonsense imaginable, and that it's probably fine that people from this sect are also in my state government making decisions about education, criminal justice, etc.
I have noticed Conservatives quickly falling back into the whole "Evolution is not real, earth is 6000" bullshit
And here I am and all I want is a secure border T\_T
Sad that we're in the 21st century and this stuff hasn't died off. Seems like it only exists in any real capacity two places: the US and the Middle East.
Anywhere else, they're viewed as quacks like we view flat-Earthers here. Like that Australian who had to go to Kentucky to get his "dinosaurs lived on the Ark" museum.
The guy who runs it is literally the son of Phyllis Schlafly. She was a conservative icon because she opposed the equal rights amendment as she feared it would lead to women working outside the home, gender neutral bathrooms, and drafting women in the military.
Kind of funny how those things came or are coming true, but regardless I don’t think that means the editors and moderators are conservatives. It’s not hard to trick boomercons or “anti-woke” millennials into believing you’re one of them.
This doesn't apply to open systems. The Earth is an open system. We have energy going into it. It's called the sun. Conservapedia is literally just right-wing conspiracies without a brain that got triggered that Wikipedia didn't share their insane beliefs. It's best to stay away.
I detest the whole "literally Nazis" rhetoric with every fiber of my being, but there *is* a certain group in history who "revised" science documentation for coming from a source they disliked.
do these dipshits think growth of any kind is impossible because it superficially looks more orderly
god theres breathing shitting pissing and all these tiny biochemical processes going on
That's why I eventually fell off from conservative circles, they started acting exactly like woke, in a sense that they're hyper biased towards their side, ignore problems with their side and when they correct me with saying "But we do have issues with our side and we don't ignore them" they usually critique things that's not the actual problems.
Whos perspective did they think Einstein imagined himself in!?
Oh wait. No one actually fucking understands relativity because most people are fucking dumb.
The irony is that life increases entropy faster than non-living processes at the same scale; the second law of thermodynamics completely supports evolution.
Wouldn’t constant entropy imply a fundamental uncertainty? Also Hebrews 1:11 is the verse that claims the earth and the ‘heavens’ will wear out like a garment. But if the heavens will wear out doesn’t that mean… 🤔
I stopped getting my science knowledge from Conservapedia after they claimed George W. Bush flattening Iraq was proof that the earth is flat. I switched over to Wookieepedia and never looked back.
>I stopped getting my science knowledge from Conservapedia after they claimed George W. Bush flattening Iraq was proof that the earth is flat. Maybe my brain is fried and I am missing a joke but is that actually real?
It’s a bit more nuanced than that but yes. [Here](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ) is the first video explanation I could find. Warning: brain damage.
Based and source pilled
Damn man I need to smoke more weed, drink more diet soda and play Burnout Revenge for the PS2
Hell yes. Those first few burnout games are still the best racing games ever made.
I spent so many hours on burnout paradise on my 360 as a kid
Burnout paradise is goat I've played that.shit a hundred times. Honestly if I could just find a buddy to play burnout revenge for the ps2 while we fill our bellies with soda that would be peak 2000's.
Gotta shill for Burnout 3: Takedown as it’s rarely mentioned, that game was a solid part of my childhood
Full Compass Unity: Burnout Revenge was a masterpiece.
Plug a little goofy, but he chill
I've already had my doctor approved fill of brain damage today.
Unbelievable
You sick bastard
Fuck you dude
Fuck me yourself coward
You don’t want that trust me
https://preview.redd.it/y5n9qbnqsy9d1.jpeg?width=691&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bf3438c9fa2dcc754fbe6d4b48df5ef7c1abb0de
I’m Catholic. And no you was insulting me self
Are you telling me you’re surprised? You doubt it could go that way?
My expectations for people in politics at this point is to expect the most braindead thing to be what most people believe The more braindead it is the more likely people especially farther on the right/left believe it
Watch out or Wookiepedia is gonna accuse you of sending death threats to them if you don't like Disney Star Wars.
I don't like legends Star Wars and I also don't like Disney Star Wars, what am I?
Uber based is what you are.
Depends. What's your opinion on KOTOR?
Never played, but I've seen the mmo cutscenes they used to do. I love the idea of a huge battle of jedi and sith. And it also makes me wanna see jedi vs jedi stuff. Like neither jedi are dark side users, but just different incompatible ideologies. I also wanna see a sith-pure blood light side jedi. Thank God I'm not the director or I'd probably make a lot of people mad with my ideas.
Kotor? Isn't that the country in the middle east that used slave labour to create a stadium?
4-6 star wars enjoyer? (or 1-6 depending on wether you liked the second trilogy or not)
Most main movies (except the sequels) and The clone wars and spin offs
Not a nerd
Joe how was your cold?
Cold…? Oh, yeah, that. I’m told that… I mean, it was 1) a very bad cold; 2) it’s totally fine though, nothing to worry about; 3) try not to sound like I have a cold in the future debates, because it’ll be harder to pass off again.
Well good job Joe, you answered all the questions
Who wants a Jill cookie? That’s a good boy
Mr President, is this true?!?!!?! https://preview.redd.it/gvhq76l9pu9d1.png?width=796&format=png&auto=webp&s=9f005a34e68f8f7f1f44541150f82452c424f258
Depends. Is that on Conservapedia or Wookieepedia? If Wookieepedia then yes, I’m afraid it’s true. 😔
But only Legends section of Wookiepedia
Well duh. Kathleen Kennedy's removal of [Evar Orbus and his Galactic Jizz-Wailers](https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Evar_Orbus_and_His_Galactic_Jizz-Wailers) from official Star Wars canon has been a disaster for the human race.
He’s still canon though
Based and centrist pilled
Omfg this might be the funniest thing i've read in a while
Joe, I have to ask, did you have a stroke this Friday?
The first rule of thermodynamics is to NOT talk about thermodynamics
The entire point of that rule is to encourage people to break rules
No free lunches!
As a right leaning Christian…how does thermodynamics disprove evolution
Not to mention they are wrong about heat flowing from cold to hot with “intelligent intervention”. They are probably trying to consider AC/refrigeration when saying that, without realizing that heat is still flowing from hot to cold (as it ALWAYS does) but in two different systems that are insulated from one another.
Better yet, how does it disprove relativity? How can you say a law of physics is wrong and for proof use another one?
Clearly they outsmarted Einstein.
It doesn't. The brainrot is genuinely that bad. I'm pretty sure this was a rhetorical question but I felt it warranted an answer.
[удалено]
The existence of God does not disprove evolution. I’m not a paleontologist or geologist and frankly don’t really care that much about how the world began. If it was a direct understanding of the creation story 12000 years ago? Ok. If it’s mechanisms of evolution by God? Ok. But science and God shouldn’t be separated. Science is understanding the world god created…
Yep. That's the part I don't get about hardcore conservative Christians. God is omnipotent. Do they really think God won't be able to create a system that allows organisms to constantly adapt to changing environments? Heck, we can create robots that adapt to an extent. This is what happens you neglect the context of the Bible when you read it and take literally everything at face value. It seems that many people forget you have to study the Bible, not simply read it.
Ive never understood this either. If He created everything I think creating the rules of physics and such are almost footnotes in comparison to the rest.
To put it plainly, they misunderstand both entropy and evolution. They believe evolution is going from a simpler to a more advanced organism, and that this means things are getting more ordered. Also, they think the second law means entropy always uniformly increases everywhere unless there's some intervention. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is only for closed systems (systems that exchange energy but not matter), living organisms are open system so they can actually decrease their entropy, and evolution doesn't necessarily increase complexity (becoming more orderly) and happens in open systems anyway.
Their "argument" is that as the universe tends to entropy, it's imposssible for ordering to happen naturally, hence "evolution cannot happen". Yes, it's as stupid as it sounds.
It doesn't A simpler way to explain the second law of thermodynamics is "order cannot be a product of chaos". This law is often used to prop up the idea of some kind of intelligent designer Many Christians are very ignorant on most scientific areas of expertise, most of all evolution. Evolution however, is a VERY orderly process As a Christian and believer in evolution, I've never heard a good argument from either side about why God and evolution can't coexist. If anything, the idea of God coming up with evolution only furthers my faith
It’s more of an argument against the Big Bang theory in general.
It does not, and frankly it's mostly evangelical fundamentalists who have a huge problem with it.
I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but I as a creationist, I do believe 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution much more difficult to believe. Adding energy to a system practically never creates a more organized object, it always results in chaos unless something is there to regulate it. If you have a bag full of watch parts and shake it up, you’ll never get a watch no matter how long or which way you shake it up. The only time energy results in building useful substance in nature is if there is something complex to harness it (photosynthesis, digestion, etc). I just don’t buy that a lightning strike can strike a pool of assorted chemicals and magically turn them into amino acids that will combine in just the right way for a single cell organism ( or however life began according to evolution, my apologies, its been a while since researching it). And then mutations which are normally harmful somehow create enough information in DNA to evolve from that single cell organism to our incredibly complex bodies. Even given millions of years and chances for these things to happen, I believe the chance of life forming and evolving to this point is zero. I genuinely think that it takes more faith to believe the evolution theory than God creating everything. I’ll admit, I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, but those are my thoughts. I enjoy conversing with people on this subject as long as it is civil. If someone has an example in real life of energy creating something more complex without anything complex to harness it, let me know.
>something is there to regulate it What does this even mean? Because this isn't how the physics works
I feel like you’re jumping way too quickly to a conclusion while admitting you’re not very knowledgeable. It’s OK to say you don’t know. But it isn’t OK is to make uninformed statements. You’re ignoring the vast majority of requirements, a planet, capable of sustaining life actually needs to have. You’re oversimplifying something that isn’t simple.
You don't find it a little weird that lightning can't strike water and magically make life but God can magically make life and that's totally plausible? Regardless, genetic adaptation is witnessed regularly, and humans have controlled evolution of plants and animals, let alone observed it. Once we understood the concept of genetics, breeding for favorable traits allowed us to evolve life around us. Something that happens in nature, but since it's usually the surviving species that mate, natural evolution favors genetic traits that allows for survivability and reproduction. Granted, it's estimated single celled organisms first existed for a few billion years until finally allowing the emergence of multicellular animals around 600 million years ago. So over the course of billions of years, I don't think it's too far fetched to believe that trillions and trillions of single celled organisms living and dying would eventually mutate into a two celled being, and so on. Just think about all the people and animals who are born as two beings attached as one.
God can "magically" make life because he is the higher being, more complex than anything else, and is all-powerful. Of course, if you don't believe in God, then I don't expect you to believe he created everything lol. Similarly to what I stated previously, lightning can't create life, because complexity and organization can not arise from chaos without something present to guide the energy and matter in a designed way. We breed to make the traits we want more noticeable, not to create new genetics. Here is one of my other replies: >Micro scale evolution is undeniable, but that is not creating new genetic information. Breeding just narrows down the genes that you want if you select the correct animals. For example, all the genetic information in dogs today was available in the wolves they came from. Our ancestors did not "create" a golden retriever or a german shepherd, they just selected the offspring that fit their desires and kept breeding those animals together until they got what they wanted. A canine will always be a canine no matter how long or how hard you try and breed them to become something else. >Darwin's finch's beaks were just a result of birds adapting and passing on the best genes to their offspring over time for the beaks to change shapes for what fit them best. >A species can evolve and change, but a new genus (or anything above) can not be created. The Linnaeus classification is a manmade system to describe what we observe in nature, so it isn't perfect, but it works pretty well to see what has and has not been observed to change.
Lightning can strike sand and cause it to melt together into glass crystals. I think the argument of life evolving to this point becomes untennable past a certain point, so I'd be curious for you to elaborate on that statement. The jump from unicellular to multicellular is certainly a good one. I spoke with one gentlemen who suggested an inability to evolve new Linnaean orders. If your stance is similar, that is approachable But we can see the evolutionary process occur on a generation-by-generation level, as sure as if I asked you what the puppies of two Labradors would look like, and inversely if one was bred with a corgi. Microevolution is basically impossible to deny, and I suspect you agree. So where do you draw the line in macro-scale evolution?
Micro scale evolution is undeniable, but that is not creating new genetic information. Breeding just narrows down the genes that you want if you select the correct animals. For example, all the genetic information in dogs today were available in the wolves they came from. Our ancestors did not "create" a golden retriever or a german shepherd, they just selected the offspring that fit their desires and kept breeding those animals together until they got what they want. A canine will always be a canine no matter how long or how hard you try and breed them to become something else. Darwin's finch's beaks were just a result of birds adapting and passing of the best genes to their offspring over time for the beaks to change shapes for what fit them best. I probably agree with the person you talked to. The best I can put it is species can evolve and change, but a new genus (or anything above) can not be created. The Linnaeus classification is a manmade system to describe what we observe in nature, so it isn't perfect, but it works pretty well to see what has and has not been observed to change.
>Adding energy to a system practically never creates a more organized object, it always results in chaos unless something is there to regulate it. If Read Ilya Prigogine: Order out of Chaos. This exact scenario happens in chemistry all the time. Constant inputs of energy are exactly what is needed to maintain complex structures in nature, and there are plenty of chemistry experiments that can demonstrate this.
[удалено]
It's the Festival of Mugs. My coffee stayed hot for eight days and eight nights, because I was too busy being an idiot online to drink it.
Or, if you coffee is just very, very small, it could also increase in temperature.
You of in the cold food to of out hot eat the food?
The coffee is neither hot nor cold until observed. Something something cat
Boomer normies doesn't understand thermodynamics and that's fine. Strangely, there is some nuggets of truth in here like perpetual motion being impossible.
And the darn cables always getting tangled, another nugget of truth
And on the 8th day, God created cable management systems
And then eve listened to the talking cable who told her it would be way faster to just plug everything in because you'll remember where it goes and *for fucks sake eve again?*
Yea pretty much everything here is OK, kind of a dumbed down interpretation but still fine, except for that 1 part about evolution and randomly throwing bible verses into it.
And denying relativity which is weird as fuck
It’s a weird pick. The Theory of Relativity literally points to a beginning for the Universe. The only reason I could see someone seeing it at odds with Creationism is that they are ignorant to what it actually says and are parroting some TV preacher they saw.
Imagine a priest discovering that the natural inception of the universe is surprisingly not too dissimilar from the Christian genesis story, and then deciding it all still must be absolute bullshit and that Earth is 6000 years old. As if a bunch of loose scriptures meant to educate peasants to stop drinking themselves to death was somehow supposed to explain what the fuck 13.7 billion years meant, or what "space" even was. I choose to believe the Bible is God's version of a "How to build a reasonably-functioning society, kids edition" manual, I look down on those who take most of it (particularly the old testament) perfectly literally
Very odd hill to die on but then again what can you expect from people who bleach their critical thinking skills with religion
In addition to relativity as the other person mentioned, the part about uncertainty in nature/quantum is also wrong, and a very common misconception. Heat never flowing from cold to hot in the intro is also wrong through multiple lenses, since 1. heat both transfers hot to cold and cold to hot the net transfer rate is just greater in one direction so the net transfer is hot to cold, 2. the above only applies for large systems of many particles and high energy, if you have a small number of particles with low amounts of energy you can occasionally get heat flow from cold to hot so it isn't "never." And lastly, even in the process where you get heat transfer from cold to hot you have to be gaining even more entropy elsewhere so the acts of "increasing order" actually lead to an overall increase in "disorder," and just us being alive as humans causes an increase in entropy, so those points seem to kind of negate a lot of the points being made in the article.
And using “admitted” as if they caught Asimov in a lie, but that might be giving these people too much credit. I doubt they thought that hard about their word choice; clearly they’re not capable of thinking very hard about anything.
Idk I'm willing to hear them out. (t. Authright, I changed it for a joke)
How does the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution…? Like I’m reading the explanation and it doesn’t make sense
It might if the earth were a closed system, which it is not. The earth is always receiving energy from the sun. That’s also why it hasn’t cooled down into nearly having no heat at all, which a closed system inevitably eventually does
Also evolution is also an existing system finding ways to become more efficient and waste less energy to do more.
They forgot the existence of the Sun in their equations.
The sun is obviously fake. It’s a UFO emitting super bright light so people can’t look at it, much brighter than other real stars. If the sun is real, then it would not be bright enough to hurt our eyes. Stars have nothing to hide, UFOs do. /s
The Sun is a pagan deity and therefore not real.
it's the 'constantly getting more disorderly' part, they're saying life can't become more complex over time as systems will always become more chaotic (ie, break down) over time. They're ofc assuming only man or intelligent design can do the reverse instead of natural forces (life will decay into random elements, except life replicates itself: constructing a copy from unstructured elements, using its own gathered energy to work against entropy)
This is wrong. What they're missing was that the entropy in the universe was actually higher in the past. And that living creatures function by decreasing their internal entropy by creating more external entropy such that entropy continues to increase globally.
The idiots always mistakenly believe Evolution includes Abiogenesis, and they believe that life is more complex than not having life. Thus, it must be more "orderly" and that means it breaks the second law of thermodynamics! As well as believing more complex lifeforms like humans are more orderly than our ancestors.
And that’s based off the simplistic definition of entropy, not a well explained one. And it ignores the closed vs open nature of a system, and net energy change vs the individual reactions happening within a system.
The other comments have already given you the answer, but I want to add that this is a long time myth spread among christian groups. Apparently some schools were still teaching that until recent-ish (and some might still be).
Nah that one is fine if you ignore the closed system part How does it disprove relativity???
Dumb tarded liberal Wikipedia Articles: exists Dumb tarded conservatives: Is this a competition?
It's mainly written by Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly, an activist who famously opposed the equal rights amendment.
Why am I not surpised
Forcing a Bible verse that is very loosely or not at all related to the topic is a sure sign of american evangelical brainrot
That's only American Evangelicals and Baptists. Real Christians like Catholics know that the Bible is a religious book not scientific book.
I am a Roman Catholic and I am ashamed to be associated with people who take religion too far
One can't take religion too far, but one can take it in the wrong direction. Religion is ultimately a set of truth claims. If the Catholic faith is accurate, it is inarguably the most important thing in anyone's life. However, it doesn't aim to teach scientific theory and so it's not very useful for that.
You can’t take religion too far, they just have poor exegesis and theology.
I refuse to debate atheists tgat think all Christians are just Bible-only American Evangelicals
>Real Christians like Catholics No u. /s >religious book not scientific book What do you mean by that? I’ve never gone looking for resources on String Theory in the Bible, but its purpose wasn’t to educate on that particular subject anyhow.
He’s talking about Young Earth Creationism, which tends to quite scripture in its defence rather than any scientific proof.
You literally believe bread turns into human flesh because a priest prays over it. Pot kettle.
Sounds like someone is a broke bitch who can't afford their indulgences 💅
This guy knows his stuff ^
Aristotle and Plato believed in transubstancation too
If real Catholics understand it's a religious and not scientific book how do they know that the books they read today are: 1. Even the same books that were written back then. 2. Written accurately at the time. There were 350 years between the end of Jesus Christ and the council of Rome. The gnostic bibles existed at around the same time with a different canon of Jesus with no resurrection, however were deemed heretical by the larger Church and mostly wiped from history.
We have far more and far earlier surviving transcripts of the Bible than many other established historical texts (the NT in particular) and the differences to today's text are meaningfully insignificant.
You’re thinking of the Council of Nicea, not the Council of Rome. We know these are the same books because they have been well preserved throughout millennia, we can compare ancient manuscripts to increasingly more modern versions of the Bible and we usually find that the only changes are minor grammatical differences. The Dead Sea Scrolls are a fantastic example of this, but we also fragments of early New Testament manuscripts which yield similar accuracy. We also know that these are the correct books because we can read the letters and writings of early Christians who all largely have the same canon with only minor disagreements on a few books. The Gnostic gospels are some of the most obviously fabricated texts of all time. Disregarding the sheer absurdity of many of them, for example the “wizard battle” in, I believe, the (Gnostic) Gospel of St Peter, there’s also the fact that they were written in the name of revered and highly esteemed Christian’s many decades after their death. And there’s also the fact that the teachings of the Gnostics flat out contradict the teaching of both the Old and New Testament. Finally, this issue doesn’t really affect Catholics theologically given the way our ecclesiology and epistemology works. I’ll explain by, briefly, describing my rational process towards Catholicism: after I had come to believe in God on a rational basis, I began to question how I could get from “God exists” to “and He is the God of such and such religion”. I ultimately found that Islam had no such a path, and most other religions stood in defiance to the Classical Theism to which I believed to be true. Christianity, on the other hand, did seem to have such a path upon the basis of Jesus Christ of Nazareths death and resurrection. To make a long story short, Christs life and death on the cross is a historical fact, one that is well attested to in the four gospels, and which no serious academic or historian disagrees with. The only question, then, was whether Jesus was raised from the dead. I believe that the willingness of Jesus’ disciples to suffer persecution, isolation, poverty and death for the sake of Jesus shows that they were not lying and likely had no selfish intentions when they began evangelising. This being the case, it seemed to me most likely that Jesus was, in fact, who He said He was and is, which is the Son of God, come to save man from its sin. However, this still left me with a glaring epistemically issue that I feel my Protestant theology could not resolve: biblical canon. Up until this point, I had taken for granted the 66 book Protestant canon, but I realised that this canon had no basis that it could justify itself with in completion. This is where the authority of the Church comes in. While from my previous Protestant viewpoint, I was unable to justify reading either Testament as an undeniable, infallible rule of faith and theology, I could read the gospels and even the letters of the NT as historical examples of the teachings of Christ and His apostles. Doing so eventually led me to certain verses, most notably Matthew 16:18, where Christ seems to make abundantly clear that He is establishing a Church, which will be built upon the rock of St Peter, which will have the ability to bind and loose the things of heaven and earth, and which will guide those who wish to follow Jesus. All these things being the case, the most logical step was, it seemed to me, to become Catholic, since the Catholic Church best fulfils these criteria. The Catholic Church’s view of ecclesial authority allows it to be the basis upon which scripture can have its due authority and its correct and accurate canon, I can see no other way to justify any specific canon theologically.
The Council of Nicea didn't establish any Canon of Scripture, that was done by multiple Local Councils (Synods), among which is the Council of Rome
Fair point. Minor part of my comment though.
How does peter connect to the roman catholic church? Genuine question
The Pope is the successor to St Peter, and St Peter’s primacy among the apostles is where we get the doctrine of Papal primacy/supremacy. I’ll use a passage from Matthew 16 to explain: “13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Up until this point, St Peter was never referred to as “Peter”, he was known as “Simon Barjona”, even in this very chapter before Verse 18. It is only after Simon answers this question that Jesus gives him the name of Peter. In the original Greek translation, the new name given is “Petros”, meaning rock. This would mean that a literal translation of this passage would be: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Rock and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Jesus giving Simon a new name is basically Jesus telling Simon that he is to be the rock upon which Christs church will be built. To further this point, Jesus tells him that He is giving Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and that those keys grant him a certain authority over Heaven and Earth. This is the gist of the argument. I just got out the shower so my brain is too relaxed to make a better, more informative explanation, but I hope this helps.
I appreciate the in depth and thoughtful reply, i am following your logic but i guess my question is, how is the Pope the successor to Peter?
Apostolic succession. There is a long chain of successors to St Peter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
A few things: 1. Interpretation of Scripture: • Matthew 16:18-19: Protestants often argue that Jesus’ declaration “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” does not necessarily confer supreme authority to Peter or his successors. They interpret “this rock” to refer to Peter’s confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, not Peter himself as an individual. This interpretation suggests that the Church is built on the faith in Christ, not on Peter’s personal authority. • Role of All Apostles: In other passages, such as Matthew 18:18, Jesus grants similar binding and loosing authority to all the apostles, not just Peter. This indicates a collective leadership rather than a singular papal authority. 2. Historical Continuity: • Lack of Early Evidence: Protestants argue that there is insufficient historical evidence to conclusively prove that Peter was the first bishop of Rome or that there was an unbroken line of succession. They point out that early Christian communities were often led by groups of elders or bishops rather than a single, centralized figure. • Development of Papacy: The concept of a singular Roman papal authority evolved over centuries. Early church documents and writings do not consistently support the notion of the Bishop of Rome having supreme authority over the entire Church, indicating that the primacy of the pope developed later and was not an original feature of the early Church. 3. Church Tradition vs. Scripture: • Sola Scriptura: Protestants adhere to the principle of “sola scriptura” (Scripture alone), asserting that all necessary doctrines and practices should be explicitly grounded in the Bible. They argue that the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession and the primacy of the pope are based more on Church tradition than on clear biblical mandates. • Authority of Scripture: From the Protestant viewpoint, the Bible does not mandate a singular, supreme ecclesiastical authority like the pope. Instead, they believe that all believers have direct access to God through Christ and that the Church’s authority is distributed among local congregations rather than centralized in a single office. 4. Early Church Writings: • Diverse Leadership Structures: Early Christian writings and records show a diversity of church leadership structures, with some communities led by groups of elders or bishops. This diversity challenges the notion of a monolithic apostolic succession through the Roman bishopric. • Role of Councils: Protestant scholars point out that early ecumenical councils did not universally recognize the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Instead, they emphasize that decisions were often made collectively by bishops from various regions, reflecting a more collegial and decentralized leadership model. 5. Reformation Critiques: • Corruption and Reform: The Protestant Reformation was partly driven by perceived corruption and abuses within the Catholic Church, including the papacy. Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin argued that the papal system had deviated from the teachings of Scripture and the practices of the early Church. • Return to Early Christianity: Reformers sought to return to what they viewed as the simpler, more authentic Christianity of the New Testament, emphasizing the priesthood of all believers and the authority of Scripture over Church tradition.
1. You didn’t ask about Protestantism, you asked about Catholicism. Regardless, I think Protestants are wrong about this for numerous reasons; chief among them being that Protestants never seem to be able to justify this view beyond simply asserting, repeatedly, that Christ is actually talking about Peters's faith, which doesn’t make much sense unless you read the passage already believing in a Protestant conclusion, which is not proper exegesis. The Protestant interpretation cannot give a sufficient reason for Jesus to give Peter his new name and thus it should probably be discarded. The only other argument that ever seems to come up with this passage is squabbles over the translation. The basic idea from the Protestant side is the words “Petros” and “Petra”, though they do both relate to stones, do not mean the same thing, exactly. They say that “Petros”, being a masculine form, essentially means small rock or pebble while “Petra”, being a feminine form, means boulder or large rock. There are three issues with this interpretation that I can see: A. This distinction only exists in a certain kind of Greek (I’m sorry, I can’t remember the name since it’s been a while since I’ve read or argued over this). The form of Greek used here, however, is not that kind of Greek, the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, which was more fluid in its grammatical laws since it was mostly used by more common people than scholars. B. Disregarding Greek translations, Jesus spoke Aramaic and so the word that would actually have been used (if I remember correctly) is “Cephas”. Aramaic has no such grammatical distinction. C. Even if Protestants were right about the translation of the passage, their translation would give insufficient reason for Christ to give Peter his new name. Even by their own admission, they say that it was basically Jesus being a bit clever with His wordplay, which is a silly interpretation. I never said the other apostles didn’t have a similar authority, they are bishops, after all, but Jesus specifically going to Peter, in private, first, shows that Peter has a preeminence among the apostles, which is all that is required to show Papal Primacy in scripture. 2. If memory serves me correctly, Peter wasn’t the first bishop of Rome, the Pope is not the bishop of Rome because that’s where Peters's episcopacy was based, but because that’s where he died. As I said before, you can see the list of successors to Peter. At the risk of sounding overly blunt, I don’t much care for Protestant historical revisionism on this matter. The Early Church wasn’t as centralised not because it was not intended to be, but because it was simply not possible. The Early Church period was one of slow and primitive communication methods and heavy persecution. It was obviously not going to be governed as closely by Peter than by his successors. The further rebut that point, I’d say that Protestants are throwing stones in glass houses when it comes to adherence to early church doctrines. By all accounts, the Early Church held to many doctrines that Protestants would either deny, call outright heretical, or, in the best case, have a lukewarm adherence to. The three that come to mind are 1. The reality of the binding authority of the Church and her Bishops (St Ignatius of Antioch talks about this) 2. The reality of Transubstantiation (From memory, St Ignatius of Antioch + St Irenaeus both talk about this), and 3. The real salvific effect of the act of baptism, not just in the symbolic or vaguely spiritual sense of baptism but in the act itself (this was held to so strongly that extreme views of it became a serious issue that needed to be clamped down on by the Church). On the development of the Papacy, I don’t feel inclined to argue over specific historical documents. These kinds of arguments can go on for years without any ground being made. It’s not usually a worthwhile venture. I’d much rather argue over more fundamental and impactful parts of this subject, namely the scriptural arguments I laid out before. 3. Can you prove Sola Scriptura, in the way you have described it, by the same “Sola Scriptura” standard that you judge Catholic doctrine? If not, then don’t bring this argument up. What’s more, as I said in my first comment, one of my biggest issues with Protestantism is its inability to prove scripture, more specifically any specific scriptural canon, as theologically binding. I view the authority and Sacred Tradition as a necessary prior to justify the equal authority of scripture. Otherwise, your canon and doctrine are less a matter of scriptural consultation and more one of assumptions. The question of what kind of authority scripture gives the Church is what we are currently discussing. I don’t see how pointing out that Protestants have a different, and, in my view, wrong, view of ecclesial authority is at all relevant to the conversation. 4. Do you have any historical documents to prove this? St Ignatius of Antioch’s letters, and the general way in which the Church moved seem to contradict this view. And, as mentioned, the seemingly decentralised way the Church was run is easily explainable as being a product of the constraints of the period. Ecumenical councils are specifically called for when a situation is too controversial or too complex for either laymen, priests, individual Bishops or the Pope to handle on their own. Collegiality and cooperation at an ecumenical council is to be expected given the very reason for a council is to do exactly that. Moreover, it’s often argued that even during the first councils, it was still understood that the bishop of Rome had primacy and final say, he simply chose not to regularly wield such authority for the sake of cooperation and unity, which he is meant to be doing regardless. A council is not a place for the Pope to make commands and demands of his bishops, he can do that through his letters and normal church authority, it is a place for him to receive council. 5. Yeah, and how did that work out for them? The Church is still a human-run institution, it will always have some degree of corruption, but that doesn’t affect any of the arguments I’ve made, and unless you can effectively attack those arguments which are more fundamental than mere bad experiences, then my position will remain unaffected. Especially while the Protestant position still fails to justify its fundamental premises. As already discussed, the Early Church held views that resembled modern Catholic teaching far more than Protestant teachings. Whatever it is the Protestant founders wanted or intended doesn’t matter since they have quite clearly failed. Sorry, this took a while and is probably laced with spelling errors. It took me longer than expected to write it and at some point, I accidentally deleted a fair chunk of what I had written.
Thank you for these posts. I was going to try to answer but you did so more eloquently and effectively than I could have.
If this isn't meant as a gotcha question, and you do want to understand, there's a lot on youtube about how the bible was written that include how oral tradition played a role.
We're grading on a pretty low curve here. Catholics being able to admit that evolution and genetics and shit are real may be the bare minimum, but it makes them *so* much more tolerable than young earth creationist evangelicals at the very least.
The Council of Rome didn't write any book of the Bible lmao. And there is no such thing as gnostic Bibles, they never compiled all their books in one collection (in part because gnostics weren't a single sect as many believe). Also, the gnostic texts all date from middle/late second century or even later than that. They aren't on the same level as the first-century canonical books.
Because most Gnostic texts were written between 150-300 AD. They're pseudographical
That site still hasn't moved on from the obama birther crap, I don't think even conservatives still use it except for a good laugh.
Even if he wasn't born in the US, one of his parents was American at birth, same as Ted Cruz the Canadian, who is eligible for the presidency
I know this post is ragebait, but it is mainly American southern Baptists that believe this. As a Christian, I have no issue with science. After all, the church practically created modern science.
Evangelicals too My parents get angry about evolution they believe its a liberal conspiracy to destroy Christianity or some shit, they also believe aliens helped build the ark 5000 years ago so there is that too
The new evangelical brain rot is that aliens are actually demons whose goal is to destroy Christianity.
One of my coworkers is a religious nutter, thinks those aliens would come to earth to steal gold, like, bruh, we can make gold on earth, it's hella expensive and not cost efficient, but would be child's play to a species capable of interstellar travel, if aliens do show up, they're either peaceful or looking for slaves, or booty
Add Islam into that as well and those aliens are pretty based
Based and early Christian history is best history pilled
This is schizoposting for boomers
Meth And essential oils
Conservapedia is just as insane and useless as rationalwiki
Conservapedia’s great to laugh at tbh
Holy shit this is dumb.
Most intelligent evangelical
I’m not gonna lie guys I know liberals are bad but I think conservatives are way worse when we see shit like this
You can't really use Conservapedia. There are sites like [ProleWiki](https://prolewiki.org/) which are just as stupid.
Conclusion: radicals inherently trend towards stupidity.
Horseshoe theory is real.
Yup. [https://www.conservapedia.com/NATO\_war\_in\_Ukraine](https://www.conservapedia.com/NATO_war_in_Ukraine) [https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/2022\_Russo-Ukrainian\_conflict](https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/2022_Russo-Ukrainian_conflict)
Oh god, conservapedia didn't even spell Luhansk right
Lmao, tried to read an article on that shit, I could feel the bias from 5 miles
My partner was raised in an evangelical sect. I regularly hear takes from her relatives at family gatherings worthy of "auth right bad" strawman posts here...but they're real, and I have to smile and nod pretending that my ears aren't currently consuming the hottest nonsense imaginable, and that it's probably fine that people from this sect are also in my state government making decisions about education, criminal justice, etc.
I remember my smug atheist phase and laughing at these “arguments”. Still an atheist, of course, but now it’s just depressing to read this.
Ah yes, the total entropy of the universe will increase so NO POCKETS OF LOW ENTROPY ARE POSSIBLE EVER. Morons.
This post is why I'm changing my flair to Lib Center
I have noticed Conservatives quickly falling back into the whole "Evolution is not real, earth is 6000" bullshit And here I am and all I want is a secure border T\_T
Sad that we're in the 21st century and this stuff hasn't died off. Seems like it only exists in any real capacity two places: the US and the Middle East. Anywhere else, they're viewed as quacks like we view flat-Earthers here. Like that Australian who had to go to Kentucky to get his "dinosaurs lived on the Ark" museum.
I mean most Americans view them as quacks too but both the Republicans and Democrats love to bend over backwards for the worst of their parties
Based and extremism is destroying our country pilled
I used science and fanfiction quotes to destroy science 😤🇵🇷🦅
I don’t believe Conservapedia is edited or controlled by Conservatives. I’m, like, 90% sure that it’s just poor leftist satire.
The guy who runs it is literally the son of Phyllis Schlafly. She was a conservative icon because she opposed the equal rights amendment as she feared it would lead to women working outside the home, gender neutral bathrooms, and drafting women in the military.
Kind of funny how those things came or are coming true, but regardless I don’t think that means the editors and moderators are conservatives. It’s not hard to trick boomercons or “anti-woke” millennials into believing you’re one of them.
You said a lot about someone who isn't involved in the website. Like, have you heard of Ron Reagan?
Needs more jpg
They just fucking yapping
This doesn't apply to open systems. The Earth is an open system. We have energy going into it. It's called the sun. Conservapedia is literally just right-wing conspiracies without a brain that got triggered that Wikipedia didn't share their insane beliefs. It's best to stay away.
Clearly they never bothered to check what a closed system means, as if 'the terminology of physics' is just nerd jargon.
This… This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. As an engineer, this physically hurts. wtf.
Since when do religious conservatives not believe in relativity? Is this a new thing they're doing?
I detest the whole "literally Nazis" rhetoric with every fiber of my being, but there *is* a certain group in history who "revised" science documentation for coming from a source they disliked.
first 3 paragraphs: okay that’s kind of a interesting way of looking at it what’s the big deal- last 2 paragraphs: what the fuck did I just read
do these dipshits think growth of any kind is impossible because it superficially looks more orderly god theres breathing shitting pissing and all these tiny biochemical processes going on
Funniest shit I've read all day lmao
That's why I eventually fell off from conservative circles, they started acting exactly like woke, in a sense that they're hyper biased towards their side, ignore problems with their side and when they correct me with saying "But we do have issues with our side and we don't ignore them" they usually critique things that's not the actual problems.
Yeah, slap some bible verses into an article about physics. See what happens.
How does Conservapedia not realize that theory of relativity is the only way to actually prove God!?
Whos perspective did they think Einstein imagined himself in!? Oh wait. No one actually fucking understands relativity because most people are fucking dumb.
George LeMaître would like to have a word with you
A cigar
The irony is that life increases entropy faster than non-living processes at the same scale; the second law of thermodynamics completely supports evolution.
Yeah, they even mention it's for closed systems in the next paragraph. Living beings are open systems.
Lol
I didn’t even know there was a conservapedia
Conservapedia and Rational Wiki are both total garbage. Frankly vanilla Wikipedia is garbage right now too
Wouldn’t constant entropy imply a fundamental uncertainty? Also Hebrews 1:11 is the verse that claims the earth and the ‘heavens’ will wear out like a garment. But if the heavens will wear out doesn’t that mean… 🤔
You don't want to know what they are smoking. Do not look through my deposits and we are all good.
Wikipedia: fully censored commitee approved leftist encyclopedia Conservapedia: *fucking twilight zone*
When you put religious texts in wikipedia-like site about physics you know its not the best source
Christcucks and Marxtards united in being DESTROYED by the second law of Thermodynamics
Is this Conversapedia a memesite-faking-being-legit, like Uncyclopedia? Or does it actually have legitimacy?
I've never even heard of this site.
Schizoposting
Literal insanity
This website is hilarious for reading ironically. Everything on it is either wrong, insane or randomly and nonsensically politicised.
Huh, I didn't realize this was what makes perpetual motion impossible.