Why do the God-haters persist?

[PostmodernProph]

the Big Bang sounded like "Let there be....." in Hebrew.....

 

[hobelim]

WTF? CHRISTIANS INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, dude!

WHAAAAAAAAT?

And God said let there be light and it was good.

The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.

Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......

 

[BillyP]

WHAAAAAAAAT?

And God said let there be light and it was good.

The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.

Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......

Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP!
The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!

 

[thanatos144]

WHAAAAAAAAT?

And God said let there be light and it was good.

The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.

Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......

Yes actually it is.

 

[hobelim]

And God said let there be light and it was good.

The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.

Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......

Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP!
The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!

Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

So, you have the intelligence to realize the story is not about the Big Bang,, so what is it about?

What separates the waters above from the waters below and established the firmament?

What is the breath of life?

How does the breath of life create a living being from the dust of the earth?

what is the dust of the earth?

what are the many trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eyes and good to eat?

what is a talking serpent? Forbidden fruit?

The sweat of the brow?

What is a cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life?

what is the sword?

what is the tree of life?

 

[thanatos144]

It still stunns me the amount fear of God that is in this thread. Dont worry he still loves you even if you don't

Tapatalk

 

[hobelim]

It still stunns me the amount fear of God that is in this thread. Dont worry he still loves you even if you don't

Tapatalk

From where I am, the ones who profess to believe the story of Genesis is about the big bang must be terrified of God so much that they will deny reality to the point of insanity and don't have the faith or courage to acknowledge that serpents can't talk, except of course the human type.

 

[BillyP]

The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.

Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......

Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP!
The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!

Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

So, you have the intelligence to realize the story is not about the Big Bang,, so what is it about?

What separates the waters above from the waters below and established the firmament?

What is the breath of life?

How does the breath of life create a living being from the dust of the earth?

what is the dust of the earth?

what are the many trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eyes and good to eat?

what is a talking serpent? Forbidden fruit?

The sweat of the brow?

What is a cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life?

what is the sword?

what is the tree of life?

Does this have something to do with the tooth fairy? Should I be scared?

 

[JimBowie1958]

WHAAAAAAAAT?

And God said let there be light and it was good.

The story of Genesis is not about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the sun or the earth and is not about the first humans, plants, or animals.

Genesis is an allegorical account of Divine Law being given as a light that separates the darkness by differentiating between clean and unclean, right and wrong, good and evil, and life and death, in a world that had been without shape and void and darkness covered the face of the deep for the previous several millions of years of human evolution......

An inventive interpretation but as valid as any. Genesis is NOT a scientific text, but its opening chapters are tales of myths and legends recorded in Holy Scripture by an inspired prophet because they had moral points to them and were true from the perspective of the person scribing the revelations.

I personally think that the first two chapters are recorded oral legends of the recovery from the Toba incident by humans from Africa that describes the rebirth of life on Earth.

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael L. Rampino and Stephen Self argue that the eruption caused a "brief, dramatic cooling or 'volcanic winter'", which resulted in a drop of the global mean surface temperature by 3–5 °C and accelerated the transition from warm to cold temperatures of the last glacial cycle.[14] Evidence from Greenland ice cores indicates a 1,000-year period of low δ18O and increased dust deposition immediately following the eruption. The eruption may have caused this 1,000-year period of cooler temperatures (stadial), two centuries of which could be accounted for by the persistence of the Toba stratospheric loading.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP!
The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!

Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

So, you have the intelligence to realize the story is not about the Big Bang,, so what is it about?

What separates the waters above from the waters below and established the firmament?

What is the breath of life?

How does the breath of life create a living being from the dust of the earth?

what is the dust of the earth?

what are the many trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eyes and good to eat?

what is a talking serpent? Forbidden fruit?

The sweat of the brow?

What is a cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life?

what is the sword?

what is the tree of life?

Does this have something to do with the tooth fairy? Should I be scared?

You should be scared simply because you are a fool.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It still stunns me the amount fear of God that is in this thread. Dont worry he still loves you even if you don't

Tapatalk

From where I am, the ones who profess to believe the story of Genesis is about the big bang must be terrified of God so much that they will deny reality to the point of insanity and don't have the faith or courage to acknowledge that serpents can't talk, except of course the human type.

Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the French section of the Catholic University of Louvain.[1] He was the first known academic to propose the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître - Catholic Culture

Father Lemaître's intellectual background was unique. His education was a synthesis of the classics, philosophy and theology along with engineering, mathematics and physics. Perhaps this powerful combination is what allowed his mind to formulate a concept as abstract and significant as the primeval atom hypothesis — his term for what we now colloquially refer to as the Big Bang. In the words of the mathematician Father Gabriel Costa, Ph.D., commenting on the value of a formation in mathematics before studying theology, "There isn't much difference between infinity and eternity."4 We live in a world off infinite quantities. A mathematician must qualitatively understand the significant difference between 101000 and ? (infinity). As a theologian, similarly, one must be able to distinguish between a long life on Earth followed by a finite amount of time in purgatory, and eternity in heaven or hell.

In May of 1933, Albert Einstein was scheduled to deliver a series of lectures in Belgium. However, following the second lecture, Einstein announced that Lemaître would be delivering the final seminar, much to Lemaître's surprise. Einstein told the scientists that Lemaître "has interesting things to tell us" and following the seminar said simply, "Very beautiful, very beautiful indeed."5 That September, Lemaître accepted appointment as a visiting professor of physics at the Catholic University of America. In 1933, Rev. Vecchierello, O.F.M. made an observation on this topic that is still valid today:


It is a point of great interest nowadays, when there is so much loose thinking and still looser writing and talking about the non-existence of God, of the immortal soul, and of a host of eternal verities, to see a man who is both a priest and a scientist fraternizing on the most intimate terms with the world's most illustrious scientific geniuses. He not only associates with them, but he is their peer; and in that is the lie given to the old and empty charge that the study of science means the loss of belief in religion. Lemaître, of course, is usually an object of great curiosity — not so much to his coreligionists as to many not of the faith who marvel at the "phenomenon" of a Catholic priest being a scientist, yes, not only a scientist of the regular run, but a genius whose theories are most daring.6


The following year, Lemaître made a presentation to Cardinal O'Connell of the Archdiocese of Boston at the Roundtable of Catholic Scientists and was also awarded the Mendel Medal from Villanova College for outstanding service to science. The culmination of these and other honors landed Lemaître with the Francqui Prize, which gave him about $390,000 in 2007 U.S. dollars. Lemaître's dedication to his vocation continued to earn him accolades. On July 27, 1935, he was named an honorary canon of the Malines cathedral by Cardinal Josef Van Roey. Later, on October 28, 1936 Pope Pius XI appointed Canon Lemaître to the newly reorganized Pontifical Academy of Sciences. By his motu proprio In Multis Solaciis, the Pope announced that the Church intended to be well informed on the current scientific revolution. Clearly, this was an implementation of the first Vatican Council's decree that faith and reason are complementary.7 Subsequently, Father John O'Hare, the president of the University of Notre Dame, hired Father Lemaître as a visiting professor. During that year, his course on cosmology was not only attended by graduate students, but also faculty members in the physics and mathematics departments.

Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News

In the late 1920s, Lemaître quietly put forth a theory he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." At the time, Einstein’s notion of a finite-sized, static universe ruled the day. But the fields of astronomy and cosmology were developing rapidly on the heels of Einstein’s breakthrough 1916 Theory of General Relativity. And as brilliant minds began extrapolating new equations from Einstein’s work, a static universe was posing some serious problems in the math. Problems that in many cases, could be ironed out if the universe was not fixed, but rather growing.

Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion....At a conference in the 1930s, where Lemaître presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism.

For his part, Lemaître was not pleased with the Pope’s position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character...The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."

Yeah, ole Georgie-poo was just terrified of God, I mean absolutely TEEERRRRIIIIIFFFIIIIIEEEEEDDDDD


roflmao


The thing that puzzles me the most these days is 'Why do apparently intelligent and educated secularists so often say the most appallingly stupid and ignorant things?'

 

[JimBowie1958]

I personally feel that there is not enough information as of yet, to make an empirical statement about what happened before the big bang.

As for years not existing before the earth was around, there also was no Jesus in 3000 B.C., yet we still use that as a marker, correct?

Evidence and science is on our side - Christians are yet to actually back up anything they believe with actual facts.
.

WTF? CHRISTIANS INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, dude!

WHAAAAAAAAT?

Here comes the choochoo train into the tunnel, you spoon fed moron.


Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the French section of the Catholic University of Louvain.[1] He was the first known academic to propose the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".

Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître - Catholic Culture

Father Lemaître's intellectual background was unique. His education was a synthesis of the classics, philosophy and theology along with engineering, mathematics and physics. Perhaps this powerful combination is what allowed his mind to formulate a concept as abstract and significant as the primeval atom hypothesis — his term for what we now colloquially refer to as the Big Bang. In the words of the mathematician Father Gabriel Costa, Ph.D., commenting on the value of a formation in mathematics before studying theology, "There isn't much difference between infinity and eternity."4 We live in a world off infinite quantities. A mathematician must qualitatively understand the significant difference between 101000 and ? (infinity). As a theologian, similarly, one must be able to distinguish between a long life on Earth followed by a finite amount of time in purgatory, and eternity in heaven or hell.

In May of 1933, Albert Einstein was scheduled to deliver a series of lectures in Belgium. However, following the second lecture, Einstein announced that Lemaître would be delivering the final seminar, much to Lemaître's surprise. Einstein told the scientists that Lemaître "has interesting things to tell us" and following the seminar said simply, "Very beautiful, very beautiful indeed."5 That September, Lemaître accepted appointment as a visiting professor of physics at the Catholic University of America. In 1933, Rev. Vecchierello, O.F.M. made an observation on this topic that is still valid today:


It is a point of great interest nowadays, when there is so much loose thinking and still looser writing and talking about the non-existence of God, of the immortal soul, and of a host of eternal verities, to see a man who is both a priest and a scientist fraternizing on the most intimate terms with the world's most illustrious scientific geniuses. He not only associates with them, but he is their peer; and in that is the lie given to the old and empty charge that the study of science means the loss of belief in religion. Lemaître, of course, is usually an object of great curiosity — not so much to his coreligionists as to many not of the faith who marvel at the "phenomenon" of a Catholic priest being a scientist, yes, not only a scientist of the regular run, but a genius whose theories are most daring.6


The following year, Lemaître made a presentation to Cardinal O'Connell of the Archdiocese of Boston at the Roundtable of Catholic Scientists and was also awarded the Mendel Medal from Villanova College for outstanding service to science. The culmination of these and other honors landed Lemaître with the Francqui Prize, which gave him about $390,000 in 2007 U.S. dollars. Lemaître's dedication to his vocation continued to earn him accolades. On July 27, 1935, he was named an honorary canon of the Malines cathedral by Cardinal Josef Van Roey. Later, on October 28, 1936 Pope Pius XI appointed Canon Lemaître to the newly reorganized Pontifical Academy of Sciences. By his motu proprio In Multis Solaciis, the Pope announced that the Church intended to be well informed on the current scientific revolution. Clearly, this was an implementation of the first Vatican Council's decree that faith and reason are complementary.7 Subsequently, Father John O'Hare, the president of the University of Notre Dame, hired Father Lemaître as a visiting professor. During that year, his course on cosmology was not only attended by graduate students, but also faculty members in the physics and mathematics departments.

Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News

In the late 1920s, Lemaître quietly put forth a theory he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." At the time, Einstein’s notion of a finite-sized, static universe ruled the day. But the fields of astronomy and cosmology were developing rapidly on the heels of Einstein’s breakthrough 1916 Theory of General Relativity. And as brilliant minds began extrapolating new equations from Einstein’s work, a static universe was posing some serious problems in the math. Problems that in many cases, could be ironed out if the universe was not fixed, but rather growing.

Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion....At a conference in the 1930s, where Lemaître presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism.

For his part, Lemaître was not pleased with the Pope’s position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character...The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."

 

[BillyP]

WTF? CHRISTIANS INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, dude!

WHAAAAAAAAT?

Here comes the choochoo train into the tunnel, you spoon fed moron.


Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître - Catholic Culture

Father Lemaître's intellectual background was unique. His education was a synthesis of the classics, philosophy and theology along with engineering, mathematics and physics. Perhaps this powerful combination is what allowed his mind to formulate a concept as abstract and significant as the primeval atom hypothesis — his term for what we now colloquially refer to as the Big Bang. In the words of the mathematician Father Gabriel Costa, Ph.D., commenting on the value of a formation in mathematics before studying theology, "There isn't much difference between infinity and eternity."4 We live in a world off infinite quantities. A mathematician must qualitatively understand the significant difference between 101000 and ? (infinity). As a theologian, similarly, one must be able to distinguish between a long life on Earth followed by a finite amount of time in purgatory, and eternity in heaven or hell.

In May of 1933, Albert Einstein was scheduled to deliver a series of lectures in Belgium. However, following the second lecture, Einstein announced that Lemaître would be delivering the final seminar, much to Lemaître's surprise. Einstein told the scientists that Lemaître "has interesting things to tell us" and following the seminar said simply, "Very beautiful, very beautiful indeed."5 That September, Lemaître accepted appointment as a visiting professor of physics at the Catholic University of America. In 1933, Rev. Vecchierello, O.F.M. made an observation on this topic that is still valid today:


It is a point of great interest nowadays, when there is so much loose thinking and still looser writing and talking about the non-existence of God, of the immortal soul, and of a host of eternal verities, to see a man who is both a priest and a scientist fraternizing on the most intimate terms with the world's most illustrious scientific geniuses. He not only associates with them, but he is their peer; and in that is the lie given to the old and empty charge that the study of science means the loss of belief in religion. Lemaître, of course, is usually an object of great curiosity — not so much to his coreligionists as to many not of the faith who marvel at the "phenomenon" of a Catholic priest being a scientist, yes, not only a scientist of the regular run, but a genius whose theories are most daring.6


The following year, Lemaître made a presentation to Cardinal O'Connell of the Archdiocese of Boston at the Roundtable of Catholic Scientists and was also awarded the Mendel Medal from Villanova College for outstanding service to science. The culmination of these and other honors landed Lemaître with the Francqui Prize, which gave him about $390,000 in 2007 U.S. dollars. Lemaître's dedication to his vocation continued to earn him accolades. On July 27, 1935, he was named an honorary canon of the Malines cathedral by Cardinal Josef Van Roey. Later, on October 28, 1936 Pope Pius XI appointed Canon Lemaître to the newly reorganized Pontifical Academy of Sciences. By his motu proprio In Multis Solaciis, the Pope announced that the Church intended to be well informed on the current scientific revolution. Clearly, this was an implementation of the first Vatican Council's decree that faith and reason are complementary.7 Subsequently, Father John O'Hare, the president of the University of Notre Dame, hired Father Lemaître as a visiting professor. During that year, his course on cosmology was not only attended by graduate students, but also faculty members in the physics and mathematics departments.

Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News

In the late 1920s, Lemaître quietly put forth a theory he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." At the time, Einstein’s notion of a finite-sized, static universe ruled the day. But the fields of astronomy and cosmology were developing rapidly on the heels of Einstein’s breakthrough 1916 Theory of General Relativity. And as brilliant minds began extrapolating new equations from Einstein’s work, a static universe was posing some serious problems in the math. Problems that in many cases, could be ironed out if the universe was not fixed, but rather growing.

Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion....At a conference in the 1930s, where Lemaître presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism.

For his part, Lemaître was not pleased with the Pope’s position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character...The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."

God of the bible made the world in 6 days. Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links.
Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool!
And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.

 

[hobelim]

Allegorical, ok. But to say that they were talking about the BB? SHADDDDUP!
The people who wrote the bible had no clue about the BB, which happened 13 BILLION years ago. Man only came on the scene within less than the last 100 million years or so. GIMMMMMEEEEE A FUCKKKKKING BREEEEAAAKKKK!!!

Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

So, you have the intelligence to realize the story is not about the Big Bang,, so what is it about?

What separates the waters above from the waters below and established the firmament?

What is the breath of life?

How does the breath of life create a living being from the dust of the earth?

what is the dust of the earth?

what are the many trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eyes and good to eat?

what is a talking serpent? Forbidden fruit?

The sweat of the brow?

What is a cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life?

what is the sword?

what is the tree of life?

Does this have something to do with the tooth fairy? Should I be scared?

No, it more like the three little pigs, little red riding hood or the pied piper.

Should you be scared? I don't think so. You seem to be immune to the poison of serpents.

But you should be horrified by what believing that what amount to fairy tales are historical records and the literal truth has done to the minds of believers like Gism..

Can you perceive that the reality only hinted about in scripture is by far more bizarre than anything ever written in a fairy tale?

Time to pay the piper.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Any story that starts with 'in the beginning" just like 'once upon a time' and has a talking snake and mythical creatures should have been a dead give away to anyone with a second grade education that it is a story written like a fairy tale with the intention of teaching bronze age children morals and truths about life that are not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

So, you have the intelligence to realize the story is not about the Big Bang,, so what is it about?

What separates the waters above from the waters below and established the firmament?

What is the breath of life?

How does the breath of life create a living being from the dust of the earth?

what is the dust of the earth?

what are the many trees whose fruit is pleasing to the eyes and good to eat?

what is a talking serpent? Forbidden fruit?

The sweat of the brow?

What is a cherubim with a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life?

what is the sword?

what is the tree of life?

Does this have something to do with the tooth fairy? Should I be scared?

No, it more like the three little pigs, little red riding hood or the pied piper.

Should you be scared? I don't think so. You seem to be immune to the poison of serpents.

But you should be horrified by what believing that what amount to fairy tales are historical records and the literal truth has done to the minds of believers like Gism..

Can you perceive that the reality only hinted about in scripture is by far more bizarre than anything ever written in a fairy tale?

Time to pay the piper.

I think part of the stupidity of those opposed to Christianity is their deliberately chosen ignorance.

That you cannot even bother to respond to direct answers to your questions and ignorant statements tells me that you chose to be uninformed and blighted.

So be it. But don't think that your claims that the Christian faith had nothing to do with the Big Bang are anything more than your own bigotry and ignorance being put on display, dear. No offense.

 

[Boss]

God of the bible made the world in 6 days. Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links.
Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool!
And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.

Biblical scholars consistently correct this false misconception and you people just continue on in misunderstanding anyway. Are you too ignorant to comprehend? What exactly is the problem and how do we fix it?

First of all, the story is not told from the perspective of a human documenting the events. There were no humans at the time. How the story is conveyed is from the perspective of God, and since God is beyond time, our constraints of "days" have no relevance. We understand a "day" as being a revolution of the Earth, but according to the story, God didn't create the moon and sun until the third "day" so how were "days" being measured with no sun or moon? Finally, we have the language barrier itself... The word "day" in the Hebrew transcript is "yom." Okay... there are at least 30 different delineations of a "yom" in similar Hebrew texts. It can mean anything from a traditional day to an era of time. So 6 "yom" could mean anything from 6 days to thousands of years.

As for the Big Bang, you've not presented any substantive evidence this event ever happened. It is a THEORY. Many physicists are now questioning if it EVER happened, including one Stephen Hawking, hardly a dumbass when it comes to this stuff. So why do we see the people here who profess this profound belief in science, actually rejecting what science is saying with regard to the Big Bang? Have you all adopted a devout faith in the Big Bang and become incapable of open-minded thought of any other possibility? How is this any different than a religious fanatic who devoutly believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Jim Bowie stated it was Christians who came up with the Big Bang theory. It was actually a Belgian Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître. He presented links to confirm this. But you've decided to ignore that and mock the literal interpretation of "let there be light" as being the argument for creationism explaining the Big Bang. Well okay, but what evidence do you have that this is not correct? Why can't God's command not be the explanation for why the Big Bang happened, IF the Big Bang happened?

 

[JimBowie1958]

WHAAAAAAAAT?

Here comes the choochoo train into the tunnel, you spoon fed moron.


Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Library : The Faith and Reason of Father George Lemaître - Catholic Culture



Big Bang Theory: A Roman Catholic Creation | WGBH News

In the late 1920s, Lemaître quietly put forth a theory he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom." At the time, Einstein’s notion of a finite-sized, static universe ruled the day. But the fields of astronomy and cosmology were developing rapidly on the heels of Einstein’s breakthrough 1916 Theory of General Relativity. And as brilliant minds began extrapolating new equations from Einstein’s work, a static universe was posing some serious problems in the math. Problems that in many cases, could be ironed out if the universe was not fixed, but rather growing.

Lemaître imagined that if the universe was expanding, it had to be expanding from somewhere and some point in time. He figured that if you traced the idea of the universe back in time, all the way to the very beginning, everything had to converge into a single point. Lemaître called that point a superatom. He suggested that the expansion of the universe had resulted from the explosion of this superatom that hurled materials in all directions, and set the universe as we know it in motion....At a conference in the 1930s, where Lemaître presented his theory, Einstein reportedly remarked, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

As astonishing as Lemaître's idea was, perhaps equally surprising to us now was the reaction of the church. Lemaître was not jailed by the Pope like Galileo. He was not excommunicated the way Johannes Keppler was by the Lutheran Church. Quite the opposite. In the early 1950s, Pope Pius XII not only declared that the big bang and the Catholic concept of creation were compatible; he embraced Lemaître's idea as scientific validation for the existence of God and of Catholicism.

For his part, Lemaître was not pleased with the Pope’s position. He believed fiercely in the separation of church and lab. He viewed religion and science as two, equally valid, distinct ways of interpreting the world, both of which he believed in with deep conviction:

"We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation. Physically it is a beginning in the sense that if something happened before, it has no observable influence on the behavior of our universe, as any feature of matter before this beginning has been completely lost by the extreme contraction at the theoretical zero. Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character...The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations."

God of the bible made the world in 6 days. Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links.
Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool!
And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.

lol, you cannot understand the difference between recorded myths of true events and simple lies.

Thus demonstrating that you are an idiot, once and for all.

 

[JimBowie1958]

God of the bible made the world in 6 days. Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links.
Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool!
And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.

Biblical scholars consistently correct this false misconception and you people just continue on in misunderstanding anyway. Are you too ignorant to comprehend? What exactly is the problem and how do we fix it?

First of all, the story is not told from the perspective of a human documenting the events. There were no humans at the time. How the story is conveyed is from the perspective of God, and since God is beyond time, our constraints of "days" have no relevance. We understand a "day" as being a revolution of the Earth, but according to the story, God didn't create the moon and sun until the third "day" so how were "days" being measured with no sun or moon? Finally, we have the language barrier itself... The word "day" in the Hebrew transcript is "yom." Okay... there are at least 30 different delineations of a "yom" in similar Hebrew texts. It can mean anything from a traditional day to an era of time. So 6 "yom" could mean anything from 6 days to thousands of years.

As for the Big Bang, you've not presented any substantive evidence this event ever happened. It is a THEORY. Many physicists are now questioning if it EVER happened, including one Stephen Hawking, hardly a dumbass when it comes to this stuff. So why do we see the people here who profess this profound belief in science, actually rejecting what science is saying with regard to the Big Bang? Have you all adopted a devout faith in the Big Bang and become incapable of open-minded thought of any other possibility? How is this any different than a religious fanatic who devoutly believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Jim Bowie stated it was Christians who came up with the Big Bang theory. It was actually a Belgian Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître. He presented links to confirm this. But you've decided to ignore that and mock the literal interpretation of "let there be light" as being the argument for creationism explaining the Big Bang. Well okay, but what evidence do you have that this is not correct? Why can't God's command not be the explanation for why the Big Bang happened, IF the Big Bang happened?

They know that the YEC claims do not represent Christian thought on the topic but they persist anyway as it makes their bullshit narrative of lies and slander easier to sell.

That is why shitheads like Hitchens like to debate fundamentalists all the time but pass on serious theologians that would embarrass them to death.

 

[BillyP]

God of the bible made the world in 6 days. Are you admitting that the bible is full of shit? Is the church admitting that it's whole dogma is based on bullshit? That's cool, thanks for the links.
Anyways, I've always professed that science proves the bible wrong, that a priest shows that it's wrong is extra cool!
And if you think that "Let there be light" proves the discovery of the BB, then you're a bigger spoon fed moron than I am.

Biblical scholars consistently correct this false misconception and you people just continue on in misunderstanding anyway. Are you too ignorant to comprehend? What exactly is the problem and how do we fix it?

First of all, the story is not told from the perspective of a human documenting the events. There were no humans at the time. How the story is conveyed is from the perspective of God, and since God is beyond time, our constraints of "days" have no relevance. We understand a "day" as being a revolution of the Earth, but according to the story, God didn't create the moon and sun until the third "day" so how were "days" being measured with no sun or moon? Finally, we have the language barrier itself... The word "day" in the Hebrew transcript is "yom." Okay... there are at least 30 different delineations of a "yom" in similar Hebrew texts. It can mean anything from a traditional day to an era of time. So 6 "yom" could mean anything from 6 days to thousands of years.

As for the Big Bang, you've not presented any substantive evidence this event ever happened. It is a THEORY. Many physicists are now questioning if it EVER happened, including one Stephen Hawking, hardly a dumbass when it comes to this stuff. So why do we see the people here who profess this profound belief in science, actually rejecting what science is saying with regard to the Big Bang? Have you all adopted a devout faith in the Big Bang and become incapable of open-minded thought of any other possibility? How is this any different than a religious fanatic who devoutly believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Jim Bowie stated it was Christians who came up with the Big Bang theory. It was actually a Belgian Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître. He presented links to confirm this. But you've decided to ignore that and mock the literal interpretation of "let there be light" as being the argument for creationism explaining the Big Bang. Well okay, but what evidence do you have that this is not correct? Why can't God's command not be the explanation for why the Big Bang happened, IF the Big Bang happened?

They know that the YEC claims do not represent Christian thought on the topic but they persist anyway as it makes their bullshit narrative of lies and slander easier to sell.

That is why shitheads like Hitchens like to debate fundamentalists all the time but pass on serious theologians that would embarrass them to death.

So "serious" theologians can change the meaning of the bible anytime they want? 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts. But I guess if you don't constantly move the goalposts, then the whole charade falls apart.
hob, I have no prob with a theologian adding to scientific knowledge. It just further disproves the bible, whomever advances something. It's all good.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Biblical scholars consistently correct this false misconception and you people just continue on in misunderstanding anyway. Are you too ignorant to comprehend? What exactly is the problem and how do we fix it?

First of all, the story is not told from the perspective of a human documenting the events. There were no humans at the time. How the story is conveyed is from the perspective of God, and since God is beyond time, our constraints of "days" have no relevance. We understand a "day" as being a revolution of the Earth, but according to the story, God didn't create the moon and sun until the third "day" so how were "days" being measured with no sun or moon? Finally, we have the language barrier itself... The word "day" in the Hebrew transcript is "yom." Okay... there are at least 30 different delineations of a "yom" in similar Hebrew texts. It can mean anything from a traditional day to an era of time. So 6 "yom" could mean anything from 6 days to thousands of years.

As for the Big Bang, you've not presented any substantive evidence this event ever happened. It is a THEORY. Many physicists are now questioning if it EVER happened, including one Stephen Hawking, hardly a dumbass when it comes to this stuff. So why do we see the people here who profess this profound belief in science, actually rejecting what science is saying with regard to the Big Bang? Have you all adopted a devout faith in the Big Bang and become incapable of open-minded thought of any other possibility? How is this any different than a religious fanatic who devoutly believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

Jim Bowie stated it was Christians who came up with the Big Bang theory. It was actually a Belgian Roman Catholic priest named Georges Lemaître. He presented links to confirm this. But you've decided to ignore that and mock the literal interpretation of "let there be light" as being the argument for creationism explaining the Big Bang. Well okay, but what evidence do you have that this is not correct? Why can't God's command not be the explanation for why the Big Bang happened, IF the Big Bang happened?

They know that the YEC claims do not represent Christian thought on the topic but they persist anyway as it makes their bullshit narrative of lies and slander easier to sell.

That is why shitheads like Hitchens like to debate fundamentalists all the time but pass on serious theologians that would embarrass them to death.

So "serious" theologians can change the meaning of the bible anytime they want? 6 days is 6 fucking days, no ifs, ands or buts. But I guess if you don't constantly move the goalposts, then the whole charade falls apart.
hob, I have no prob with a theologian adding to scientific knowledge. It just further disproves the bible, whomever advances something. It's all good.

A myth is not a lie, moron, and it is not necessarily literal history either.

So go play in a street, idiot until you learn the difference.