| Christian Philosophy & Ethics The forum to discuss philosophy and ethics from a Christian perspective. |
 | | 
16th June 2012, 06:38 PM
| | Newbie
 
| | Join Date: 15th June 2012
Posts: 138
Blessings: 3,851
Reps: 19,369,466,585,852,792 (power: 19,369,466,585,853) | | | I believe in the Big Bang theory
Just that it was not random but from God's finger! |
23rd June 2012, 04:59 PM
|  | Late nights and early parades.
24     
| | Join Date: 30th September 2006 Location: Manila
Posts: 415
Blessings: 62,325 My Mood 
Reps: 9,237,643,398,312,204 (power: 9,237,643,398,319) | | | Oh, God is truly great. |
23rd June 2012, 05:20 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
63   
 | | Join Date: 8th February 2009 Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4,083
Blessings: 3,267,697
Reps: 533,723,977,215,586,112 (power: 533,723,977,215,595) | | Originally Posted by ViaCrucis  I don't think theologians have ever, categorically, been frightened of science. Many of the greatest minds in the Church upheld the study of the natural order as good and praiseworthy. If anything it has primarily only been in the last 100-150 years or so that it's become a real issue, and primarily (arguably) due to the rigidity of the reactionary Fundamentalist Movement. Which had more to do with German Liberalism than science, but it became an issue especially since the Scopes Trial back in the 1920's. Religion vs Science is a modern phenomenon.
-CryptoLutheran
The first sign that I know of was the reaction to the new astronomy. More than 150 years ago. Some of that was personality conflicts and politics, but I'd still say it's the start of the problem. Things didn't get bad until the 19th Cent, with Darwin, and then the beginning of sustained atheist myth making. (I consider the "war between science and religion" at least as much an atheist myth as a reality, but there are certainly Christians who make it a reality.)
The theological foundations, however, seem to go back to the next generation or two after the Reformers. Some Protestants in that period developed Scriptural inerrancy / literalism as a response to Catholic accusations that Scripture could never be a sane authority because everyone interprets it differently. The hope was that if we're literal enough, we can get agreement.
You'll see claims that Biblical literalism itself didn't start until the 19th Cent. This seems to be wrong, though the implications got more obvious and more harmful in the 19th Cent.  |
23rd June 2012, 11:05 PM
|  | Freebird
54   
| | Join Date: 20th June 2004 Location: Belleville IL
Posts: 248
Blessings: 61,567 My Mood 
Reps: 116,149,240,717,135,056 (power: 116,149,240,717,144) | | Originally Posted by WinBySurrender I think I'm disappointed this thread isn't about the TV show. 
Just kidding. If that is what happened, it would have destroyed everything God created the first three days, since He did not create light until the fourth day.
What I think of the "big bang" theory is this: God spoke, and ... Attachment 126867
... it happened!
Knock knock knock
Leonard?
Knock knock knock
Leonard?
I will agree that this seems the most coherent with the Biblical accounts. However, Genesis 1 and 2 (IMO) were never intended to be a rigorous scientific description. |
2nd July 2012, 01:13 PM
|  | Rejoice in the Lord always!
21  
| | Join Date: 2nd December 2004 Location: Carbondale, IL
Posts: 5,843
Blessings: 93,503 My Mood 
Reps: 3,216,194,528,697,346 (power: 3,216,194,528,711) | | | Since time, matter, and energy were all created at the start of the universe, I would propose that something outside of space and time would have to be the catalyst to the expansion of the universe from that infinitely small and dense point. I've always attributed God to be the force behind the Big Bang, as well as the Great Engineer behind biology, chemistry and physics.
__________________
Write it down and remember, that we never gave in. The mind of a child is where the revolution begins. So if the solution has never been to look in yourself, how is it that you expect to find it anywhere else?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
2nd July 2012, 01:53 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 27th June 2012
Posts: 296
Blessings: 22,561
Reps: 2,140,983,168,882,817 (power: 2,140,983,168,883) | | | Many persons, including me, try at some point to harmonize the bible with the big bang theory and it really can't be done. While the genesis account has a lot in common with tht big bang in terms of the scientific facts the earth being formed in stages, life beginning in the ocean, etc. the two cannot be totally reconciled. If there is no literal fall of mankind due to the sin of Adam then there is no need for a ransom sacrifice of Jesus.
Evolution and the big bang threory are merely educated guesses that delete Jehovah GOD out of the equation and eliminate the basis of Jesus death and Christian faith.
The scientific facts are in complete haromony with the bible but the "theories" aka "educated guesses" aren't and those can't be reconciled. |
2nd July 2012, 06:39 PM
|  | Soli Deo Gloria
24    
| | Join Date: 3rd February 2010 Location: Kingdom of God
Posts: 4,940
Blessings: 1,061,627 My Mood 
Reps: 750,297,989,733,205,632 (power: 750,297,989,733,213) | | Originally Posted by tezboski99 Many persons, including me, try at some point to harmonize the bible with the big bang theory and it really can't be done. While the genesis account has a lot in common with tht big bang in terms of the scientific facts the earth being formed in stages, life beginning in the ocean, etc. the two cannot be totally reconciled. If there is no literal fall of mankind due to the sin of Adam then there is no need for a ransom sacrifice of Jesus.
Evolution and the big bang threory are merely educated guesses that delete Jehovah GOD out of the equation and eliminate the basis of Jesus death and Christian faith.
The scientific facts are in complete haromony with the bible but the "theories" aka "educated guesses" aren't and those can't be reconciled.
The two cannot be reconciled if we continue to hold on to the false presupposition that the Bible deals with material creation. On the literalness of Adam, there are arguments for and against within theistic evolution.
Evolution and the big bang theory do not delete Jehovah GOD, they make no claims one way or the other, coming from the science side it is far more easy and acceptable to proclaim that God did it, that God works through and is the author of creation. Evolution and the big bang have even less to do with the person and work of Christ. In my opinion it is historically irrefutable that a Jewish Messiah claimant Yeshua ben Yosef from Nazareth, preached in 1st Century Galilee and Judea, was crucified as the King of the Jews, and rose from the grave three days later.
__________________
Now accept one who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. Who are you who judge another’s servant? Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. |
3rd July 2012, 09:02 AM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 27th June 2012
Posts: 296
Blessings: 22,561
Reps: 2,140,983,168,882,817 (power: 2,140,983,168,883) | | | While the theories don't expressly state that "there is no GOD in this process" the simple omission of credit to GOD is misleading. I didn't learn of the "creation by GOD" in public school but the "Big Bang". Really the "Big Bang" itself in terms of a vast energy producing the universe harmonizes with the bible.
Evolution as a process used by GOD is a position I've heard but it is not supported by the scriptures. Jesus quoted the book of genesis as a historical fact. Adam is listed in Jesus' lineage of ancestors. If Jesus quotes as fact a story that is fictional he lied. If there is no fall of man due to the sin of Adam there is not a need for a redeemer in Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:21-22
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Genesis is the basis of Christianity just as the Declration of Independence is the basis of the United States of America or the foundation of a house is the basis of the house. Without it these....the rest falls apart.
We can't ignor the teaching of evolution or the genesis accout as insignificant to faith in Jesus. If we do that then our faith is useless and baseless and not built on the "rock mass" as Jesus preached. |
3rd July 2012, 09:34 AM
| | Soli Deo Gloria
24
| | Join Date: 3rd February 2010 Location: Kingdom of God
Posts: 4,940
Blessings: 1,061,627 My Mood
Reps: 750,297,989,733,205,632 (power: 750,297,989,733,213) | | Originally Posted by tezboski99 While the theories don't expressly state that "there is no GOD in this process" the simple omission of credit to GOD is misleading. I didn't learn of the "creation by GOD" in public school but the "Big Bang". Really the "Big Bang" itself in terms of a vast energy producing the universe harmonizes with the bible.
Well considering "God did it" is the theistic catchphrase, no you're hardly going to hear that in a secular school, especially one in a country where separation of Church and State is fundamental to their system of governance. Evolution as a process used by GOD is a position I've heard but it is not supported by the scriptures.
Should it be? I notice your faith icon says that you are a JW, you do know that unitarianism (that God is both one in being and person) is not supported by scriptures, yet you quite happily hold on to that. Jesus quoted the book of genesis as a historical fact. Adam is listed in Jesus' lineage of ancestors. If Jesus quotes as fact a story that is fictional he lied. If there is no fall of man due to the sin of Adam there is not a need for a redeemer in Christ.
You appear to be making a category mistake here, you see hebraic literature, like almost all literature is not confined to one genre per book, indeed you can see this in Exodus 14-15 where the same event is told in both prose and poetry, while Genesis 1 is not strictly poetry it can quite easily be called exalted prose narrative, which makes it highly unlikely that the author intended it to be a literal historic narrative but more likely the spiritual side of what was going on in Genesis 2, as such the history account picks up at the creation of the Garden of Eden, not at the beginning of the universe. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Genesis is the basis of Christianity just as the Declaration of Independence is the basis of the United States of America or the foundation of a house is the basis of the house. Without it these....the rest falls apart.
Two things, first of all I believe in a literal Adam, second of all Paul disagrees with you, in this very chapter, he says almost directly above your quote:
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. We can't ignore the teaching of evolution or the genesis account as insignificant to faith in Jesus. If we do that then our faith is useless and baseless and not built on the "rock mass" as Jesus preached.
I agree, we can't ignore either, we must accept both, we are theists after all are we not? Sure we need to and should discard the atheistic and deistic ideas that have built up around the theory of evolution, but we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.
__________________
Now accept one who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. Who are you who judge another’s servant? Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. For none of us lives to himself, and none dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord. Or if we die, we die to the Lord. If therefore we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. |
3rd July 2012, 11:06 AM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 27th June 2012
Posts: 296
Blessings: 22,561
Reps: 2,140,983,168,882,817 (power: 2,140,983,168,883) | | Originally Posted by progmonk Well considering "God did it" is the theistic catchphrase, no you're hardly going to hear that in a secular school, especially one in a country where separation of Church and State is fundamental to their system of governance.
Agreed 
Should it be? I notice your faith icon says that you are a JW, you do know that unitarianism (that God is both one in being and person) is not supported by scriptures, yet you quite happily hold on to that.
Once researched in depth there is a vast amount of scriptural support and Jesus himself worships the Father but that's another topic. (If you'd like to discuss the trinity further send me a message to my inbox.)
You appear to be making a category mistake here, you see hebraic literature, like almost all literature is not confined to one genre per book, indeed you can see this in Exodus 14-15 where the same event is told in both prose and poetry, while Genesis 1 is not strictly poetry it can quite easily be called exalted prose narrative, which makes it highly unlikely that the author intended it to be a literal historic narrative but more likely the spiritual side of what was going on in Genesis 2, as such the history account picks up at the creation of the Garden of Eden, not at the beginning of the universe.
Understandable and agreed. While the narrative isn't confined to one specific genre the scientific portions are still accurate. The "day's" in creation weren't literal and were later referred to in genesis 2:4 collectively as 1 "day".
Two things, first of all I believe in a literal Adam, second of all Paul disagrees with you, in this very chapter, he says almost directly above your quote:
Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
Not a disagreement. My point is that if there is any untruth in what we preach then we are not in posession of solid faith. If the theories are totally true and the big bang and evolution are 100% accurate there was no Adam in history. No Adam = no need for Jesus.
Paul was speaking of the resurrection in particular but still making a parallel argument. If Jesus wasn't resurrected then our faith is useless.
I agree, we can't ignore either, we must accept both, we are theists after all are we not? Sure we need to and should discard the atheistic and deistic ideas that have built up around the theory of evolution, but we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree that facts are facts. If there is an obvious error either in interpretation of the bible or in the presentation of the theory in relation to evidence...then we have to change our outlook instead of twisting it to fit. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
