Wait. Am I just stupid?

[The Nihilist]

Why do (some) christians oppose the idea of the big bang? It seems to me they should be shouting it from the rooftops. Science, the liberal atheist engine of death, has embraced the claim that the universe is FINITE. The universe is not without a beginning, which is a suggestion that atheists have provided for millennia to explain a universe that doesn't need divine creation. If they would just decide that the first books of the bible were highly metaphorical, not only would science be on their side, but they could quit acting like crazy people. They wouldn't have to constantly argue against science, it would be on their side. Atheists would look like crazy people, atheists would be the ones continuing to believe their petty, ill-supported religion in the face of scientific fact. Science could have been your monster, christians.
But no, instead of embracing the big bang as proof of a creator, lots of christians sided against science, choosing instead the path of blind ignorance. Why? I don't understand at all.

 

[Chesterton]

The Big Bang theory was first developed by a scientist who was a Catholic priest. That no doubt had a lot to do with many secular scientists initially rejecting the idea.

 

[70x7]

Because God doesnt say it happened like that.
Genesis 1 says the earth was created before the sun and stars. The big bang would need it the other way around.
The big bang theory also would need the billions of years that science would need. Again, God said creation was 6 days. It doesn't fit in line with the Bible.

What you asking is that we change what was written in order to fit scientific thought. It should be the other way around. It is awesome that the scientific community has embraced a beginning to the universe! Us creationists have known that for along time! Welcome!

 

[MaxP]

Why do (some) christians oppose the idea of the big bang? It seems to me they should be shouting it from the rooftops. Science, the liberal atheist engine of death, has embraced the claim that the universe is FINITE. The universe is not without a beginning, which is a suggestion that atheists have provided for millennia to explain a universe that doesn't need divine creation. If they would just decide that the first books of the bible were highly metaphorical, not only would science be on their side, but they could quit acting like crazy people. They wouldn't have to constantly argue against science, it would be on their side. Atheists would look like crazy people, atheists would be the ones continuing to believe their petty, ill-supported religion in the face of scientific fact. Science could have been your monster, christians.
But no, instead of embracing the big bang as proof of a creator, lots of christians sided against science, choosing instead the path of blind ignorance. Why? I don't understand at all.

You'll find most of the Catholic Church is actually quite scientifically sound. Catholics oftimes do believe in evolution, and are very up to date on science. So depends what Christian you're talking about.

 

[The Nihilist]

You'll find most of the Catholic Church is actually quite scientifically sound. Catholics oftimes do believe in evolution, and are very up to date on science. So depends what Christian you're talking about.

I know, the Church is good about this stuff. Comes from experience, I suppose. What I don't understand is why the Church didn't emphasize the big bang as evidence of a creator? Ok, I do understand that, and it's probably because the Church has learned to stay out of this business. I'm wondering why the rest of them didn't do it.

 

[Hespera]

Because God doesnt say it happened like that.
Genesis 1 says the earth was created before the sun and stars. The big bang would need it the other way around.
The big bang theory also would need the billions of years that science would need. Again, God said creation was 6 days. It doesn't fit in line with the Bible.

What you asking is that we change what was written in order to fit scientific thought. It should be the other way around. It is awesome that the scientific community has embraced a beginning to the universe! Us creationists have known that for along time! Welcome!

There are places in the bible where it claims to be direct quotes from god.

"in the beginning", it says, "god created the heaven and the earth".

It does not say "I , god" created... So your claim that god said it is false false false.

As for science catching up with "us creationists", left to what the church and its victims know, the sun would still be moving about the earth. Eventually the church did face (scientific) facts, but only after burning a few of those nasty thinkers.

Take credit where credit is due! The church has preserved the moldiest superstitions on earth, and done it for more centuries than any other institutuion. That is quite an accomplishment. Well, nah, not really true, there are some funny traditions in China that are older.

 

[OldManAnon]

But Hespera - don't you know, the bible was all dictated by GOD HIMSELF! People who believe in that doctrine tell us so! Never mind that the Jewish people whose book it was had a literary and theological tradition of interpretation and allegory - this time and this time alone they were being 100% literal (and yes, all those rabbinical debates and texts around before Biblical literalism became a movement in America in the mid 19th century are just lies!)

Never mind that the first two chapters of Genesis are mutually exclusive if taken 100% literally (and if you're not 100% literal face value no interpretation then you're interpreting just as much as I am)

 

[Tomk80]

I know, the Church is good about this stuff. Comes from experience, I suppose. What I don't understand is why the Church didn't emphasize the big bang as evidence of a creator? Ok, I do understand that, and it's probably because the Church has learned to stay out of this business. I'm wondering why the rest of them didn't do it.

For the catholic church, as far as I know George Lemaitre (the catholic priest who came up with the idea of the universe arising out of a singularity in the first place) vehemently opposed using this as evidence of God, stating that

The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less—some more than others—on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or as ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors of historic or scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if errors relate to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them.

 

[atomweaver]

The Big Bang theory was first developed by a scientist who was a Catholic priest. That no doubt had a lot to do with many secular scientists initially rejecting the idea.

Maybe a bit for some... but not likely for the majority. The skepticism had more to do with the lack of evidence supporting the theory.

Lemaitre was ordained a priest, but TTBOMK, in his life he never ministered to the public, nor did he administer Sacraments. It looks like the priesthood was his fall-back career plan, in case that whole 'physics thing' didn't work out for him . Lemaitre taught at a Catholic university for quite some time... I wonder, was being ordained a priest perhaps a job requirement for such a position back then?

 

[Chesterton]

Maybe a bit for some... but not likely for the majority. The skepticism had more to do with the lack of evidence supporting the theory.

You could make the same argument on behalf of the Catholic hierarchy in the Galileo case - much of the Catholic high-ups' skepticism had to do with Galileo's bad evidence, even though the idea was right.

Lemaitre was ordained a priest, but TTBOMK, in his life he never ministered to the public, nor did he administer Sacraments.

I really don't know, but I don't see how that matters. Priests do do different things, and AFAIK, you're either a priest or you're not.

It looks like the priesthood was his fall-back career plan, in case that whole 'physics thing' didn't work out for him .

I guess he did okay with the "physics thing".

 

[arunma]

But Hespera - don't you know, the bible was all dictated by GOD HIMSELF! People who believe in that doctrine tell us so! Never mind that the Jewish people whose book it was had a literary and theological tradition of interpretation and allegory - this time and this time alone they were being 100% literal (and yes, all those rabbinical debates and texts around before Biblical literalism became a movement in America in the mid 19th century are just lies!)

Never mind that the first two chapters of Genesis are mutually exclusive if taken 100% literally (and if you're not 100% literal face value no interpretation then you're interpreting just as much as I am)

Drekkan, your support of Hespera's claim that only the "God says" parts of the Bible are truly dictated by God is incorrect. The Bible itself rejects this idea, and teaches that all Scripture is from the mouth of God (2 Timothy 3:16). For example, compare Matthew 19:4-5 with Genesis 2:24.

He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? (Matthew 19:4-5)

Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24)
​

The statement that Christ quoted was not attributed directly to God. It was Moses, the author of Genesis, who said that a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife. Yet Christ attributed this statement ultimately to God. This implies that he viewed the entire Old Testament as proceeding from the mouth of God. He affirms this principle elsewhere when he says that Psalm 110 was written by David "in the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 12:36). The New Testament Scriptures are also the words of God. Paul referred to his own writings as "a command of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37). So the idea was quite common among Biblical authors that the phrase "thus says the Lord" is not a necessary condition for revelation from God.

As to your claim that the Jewish faith disagrees with our interpretation of Scripture, I would ask you to consider two things. First, the Jews (more specifically, Jews who are not also Christians) reject Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. I would ask you to read 1 John 2:22, and then ask yourself why God's church should accept any of their teaching on doctrine or theology. Secondly, to say that Jews have authority to interpret the Old Testament simply by virtue of their being ethnically Jewish is absurd. It is as erroneous as for me to say that I have special authority to interpret the Rig Veda solely by virtue of my being Indian, despite that I don't know a word of Sanskrit. The point is this: no one can claim ownership of the Bible simply by virtue of ethnicity or nationality. Therefore I see no compelling reason to accept the Jewish interpretation of Scripture. And might I remind you that if you do see some compelling reason to do so, then you ought not to be a Christian, because virtually all non-Christian Jews will tell you that Jesus is not the Christ.

 

[70x7]

There are places in the bible where it claims to be direct quotes from god.

"in the beginning", it says, "god created the heaven and the earth".

It does not say "I , god" created... So your claim that god said it is false false false.

(sigh....) Since you are such an expert on God, the Bible, and Chrisitanity I know this wouldnt be the first time you have actually read scripture, but I just started at the beginning of the Book and pulled off the FIRST page. How many times does is say "God said"? Hmm....I can bold them for you if you want.
Sorry sister. True true true.


"The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day."

 

[OldManAnon]

Drekkan, your support of Hespera's claim that only the "God says" parts of the Bible are truly dictated by God is incorrect. The Bible itself rejects this idea, and teaches that all Scripture is from the mouth of God (2 Timothy 3:16). For example, compare Matthew 19:4-5 with Genesis 2:24.

He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? (Matthew 19:4-5)

Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:23-24)
​

The statement that Christ quoted was not attributed directly to God. It was Moses, the author of Genesis, who said that a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife. Yet Christ attributed this statement ultimately to God.

Slight correction - Mathew attributed this statement to Christ which attributed it to God. Christ himself didn't write the passage, thus the passage was written by man, not God. And man, no matter how divinely inspired is fallible, only the almighty is not.

As for Paul addressing himself as writing under Command of the Lord - doesn't the Bible also warn about false prophets? You should be skeptical of anyone that claims the Lord's right to infallibility.

This implies that he viewed the entire Old Testament as proceeding from the mouth of God. He affirms this principle elsewhere when he says that Psalm 110 was written by David "in the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 12:36). The New Testament Scriptures are also the words of God. Paul referred to his own writings as "a command of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 14:37). So the idea was quite common among Biblical authors that the phrase "thus says the Lord" is not a necessary condition for revelation from God.

In fact (and this addresses the next posters point as well) none of it can be taken as God himself speaking as it's all written in the third person. If I'm taking dictation and someone says "then I did XYZ" I use their exact words, I don't transliterate into the third person. Thus this is obviously a person writing, and not God, describing God's actions. Thus once again it's not bound by any rules of infallibility.

This is important because otherwise we'd have some problems a page or two in (I'm using the KJV here). In Genesis 1 God creates all the animals of the sea on the fifth day. Then, on the sixth day God creates all the creatures of the land and then AFTER he's created every creature, he creates man. In Genesis 2 he creates Man in the Garden and then creates around man the beasts of the world.

These are clearly two early Jewish creation stories that have been put together (possibly because they didn't want to delete either one due to conflict about which was true). You can choose to interperate away the differences and problems between the two, however at a literal 100% face reading without any interpretation they're mutually exclusive passages.

As to your claim that the Jewish faith disagrees with our interpretation of Scripture, I would ask you to consider two things. First, the Jews (more specifically, Jews who are not also Christians) reject Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. I would ask you to read 1 John 2:22, and then ask yourself why God's church should accept any of their teaching on doctrine or theology. Secondly, to say that Jews have authority to interpret the Old Testament simply by virtue of their being ethnically Jewish is absurd. It is as erroneous as for me to say that I have special authority to interpret the Rig Veda solely by virtue of my being Indian, despite that I don't know a word of Sanskrit. The point is this: no one can claim ownership of the Bible simply by virtue of ethnicity or nationality. Therefore I see no compelling reason to accept the Jewish interpretation of Scripture. And might I remind you that if you do see some compelling reason to do so, then you ought not to be a Christian, because virtually all non-Christian Jews will tell you that Jesus is not the Christ.

It's not about accepting the Jewish interpretation of scripture, it's about reading the works in the context they're written. To use your example, your being Indian has nothing to do with you being able to interpret the Rig Veda. However, the fact that the Rig Veda is an Indian manuscript means that the traditions of the Indian people at the time the Rig Veda was written IS important to interpretation of what it means and the context in which you read it.

In this case the Jewish people, at the time, had a long history of allegorical writing, interpretation, and non-literalism. Thus to expect that the holy book they used was not allegorical, not subject to interpretation, and was literal is ridiculous. How modern Judaism interprets the Old Testament isn't important - how the Jews who wrote the Old Testament thought/acted about scripture IS important to understanding said scripture.

 

[Hespera]

70x7 So 'god" spoke to himself, actually using, Words! Nobody and nothing to hear it but talking away. And used "hands" to do things. I dunno, its all too much for me.

 

[Athrond]

Maybe he was talking to himself to remember the spell or something.

Heh reminds me of the saying "If a tree fell in the forrest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Isn't it obvious that there is some human telling a tale what God supposedly did?

 

[Hespera]

All of this makes me think of nothing so much as some kids playing "star wars' and taking it all so seriously. Arguing about the trivia, taking sides, acting things out, totally oblivious for the moment that it is all just fantasy and make believe.

Seems like some day people would just kind of wake up and notice its all make believe.

I wonder how long it will take? Ten thousand years until the infantile fantasies of a sky god finally finally are left where they should have been left by the end of the neolithic, in the disappearing past?

 

[OldManAnon]

All of this makes me think of nothing so much as some kids playing "star wars' and taking it all so seriously. Arguing about the trivia, taking sides, acting things out, totally oblivious for the moment that it is all just fantasy and make believe.

Seems like some day people would just kind of wake up and notice its all make believe.

I wonder how long it will take? Ten thousand years until the infantile fantasies of a sky god finally finally are left where they should have been left by the end of the neolithic, in the disappearing past?

You can make a fine argument that we're like this thanks to evolution. The argument is laid out in The God Delusion but a summary is that a prime reason for belief is that's what we were taught since we were kids (hence why many children have the same religion as their parents). This is a form of obedience to elders. In general, at early stages in our development the kids that listen to what their elders tell them rigorously live, those that eat the pink berries and the yellow snow die. Hence there's a natural selection across millennia for people that tend to obedience to the messages of their elders/parents.

That said I myself was raised in a rather agnostic home and didn't 'find religion' until my mid high school years. It was a personal thing with God and thus completely and totally irrational. Honestly. There's absolutely no rational argument I can make to convince you that God exists; other then to try and convince you to at least keep your mind open. I have no qualms about my faith being irrational, because, at least the way I practice, it generally inspires/helps me and it doesn't lead me to doing crazy stuff that hurts other people. People do irrational things all the time and society doesn't mock them. People drive out of their way to get to a sale and end up spending more on gas then they do at the sale. At the same sale people will buy stuff they don't really want/need purely because it's there and they're still "saving money". People will follow through with plans despite something else coming up that they'd rather due purely because of sunk costs. People vote in certain outcome elections. People are congratulated on voting in certain outcome elections.

Now on one thing I'll agree with you full-heartedly; people take their religion far, far, too seriously. As the great Lewis Black once said, "Religion, without a sense of humour, is fuddle-duddleing scary" (if you don't know what I mean by fuddle-duddle ask a Canadian who remembers Trudeau).

 

[Athrond]

Well I prophesise (is that even a word?), that evolution will get Creationists in the end. Their meme will bite them on the posterior and turn them into the low paid "maids" of the rest of the world, because that is what you get for shunning education and science. No large group of ignorant people ever succeded in human history*


* ok i pulled this fact right out of my "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]", sounds about ok though.

 

[OldManAnon]

Well I prophesise (is that even a word?), that evolution will get Creationists in the end. Their meme will bite them on the posterior and turn them into the low paid "maids" of the rest of the world, because that is what you get for shunning education and science. No large group of ignorant people ever succeded in human history*


* ok i pulled this fact right out of my "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]", sounds about ok though.

Well the one problem is that education and atheism are fairly highly correlated. Further, more educated people tend to have fewer children. Thus they could be 'outbred' in a binary state of:

Belief/Atheism

Rather it will likely be an incremental process relying on people such as myself who, while not atheists, are atheist friendly and are willing to accept the irrationality of their faith.

 

[Chalnoth]

The Big Bang theory was first developed by a scientist who was a Catholic priest. That no doubt had a lot to do with many secular scientists initially rejecting the idea.

Unlikely that had anything whatsoever to do with it. It just took a while before the evidence came in. That is all.