Was the Big Bang the Genesis?

[pinto]

"In the beginning..."

[CBGLuthier]

1. No

[pinto]

2. May be.

[hrmjustin]

3. Interesting question.

I think God started the big bang.

[pinto]

5. It crossed my mind as religious allegory and scientific theory. Neither define a "before", yet both

recognize a beginning. Each in their own way.

[hrmjustin]

8. Yes they do.

I look at Genesis as Allegory but when I read it I can somehow blend it with science. Some people do this by saying a day could have been millions or billions of years long. I don't do that but when I read it I can mix it with science.

[stopbush]

80. If a day could have been millions or billions of years instead of 24 hours,

then what happened to the plants which "god" created on the third day - he didn't create the sun until the 4th day, at least according to the "science text" called The Bible. How did all the plants survive the sun not being created for another million years?

Face it, the Bible is ignorant crap when it comes to science. Why even bother trying to mix it with actual science?

[hrmjustin]

82. I agree that Genesis is not science.

It is just a story thst the authors told to get a message across.

[stopbush]

84. I agree. Too bad the message sucked as much as the bad science.

[hrmjustin]

85. Genesis was really written to set up the religion.

[stopbush]

87. Genesis was written to place men (not women, BTW) at the center of god's created universe.

You know, the "dominion over all" bullshit.

Within that concept lies most of the world's ills, and the seed of the megalomania that has driven the worst despots of history.

[hrmjustin]

88. Unfortunately you are right that it was used to keep women as property

and exalt men.

[stopbush]

94. The Old Testament is a horrible, horrible document, and the NT isn't much better.

Those of you who call yourselves believers actually have a lot to answer for, especially as you're helping to keep alive one of most anti-human philosophies ever devised by man.

The philosophy of the Bible is just as bad as fascism, maybe worse.

[cbayer]

95. Wait. Did you just say that biblical philosophy is as bad and maybe worse, than fascism?

And that believers have to answer for what is written in the bible?

This is a serious dive into the shallow end of the pool.

[stopbush]

101. Yes I did. Have you ever read the Bible, specifically, the law of the Bible?

It's horrible. Much worse than fascism. Fascism doesn't have specific rules about how much $ you should get for selling your daughter into slavery.

Jesus said that not one iota of the Law was to be changed, that he came to fulfill the Law.

You can't have it both ways.

[cbayer]

116. Are you not able to read critically?

Are you one of those literalists?

Just when I thought the bottom of the barrel had been scraped around here, you come along and say the the bible is much worse than fascism. I guess I should never cease to be amazed.

What the hell is the "Law of the Bible"?

What might be the both ways? I am just grateful that most people can read these texts with some ability to think critically, see the contradictions and take the good while leaving the bad.

You are apparently not one of those people.

[hrmjustin]

97. And I thought we were getting along.

[cbayer]

98. Most certainly not, you fascist!!

[hrmjustin]

99. I just knew I was an evildoer!

[stopbush]

100. You tell me - are we supposed to take the Bible as a whole, or are we to cherry pick it,

leaving out all of the disgusting parts so it better conforms to the ethos of a more-enlightened age?

God ordered the Jews to commit genocide on their enemies, which they did. As a believer, you must be OK with that, as that same god is the triune god of the Xian faith.

So, are you a cherry picker?

[hrmjustin]

104. I believe in a God of love. The people who wrote that stuff were tribal and war like.

Am I a cherry picker? I would say I believe is divine revelation but not all of it comes from God and the writer's personality, culture, and agendas are also in play in these text and I keep that in mind when I read it.

[stopbush]

108. You're a cherry picker, for sure.

A cherry picked faith is a rather cheap commodity. It demands nothing from the believer, because the act of cherry picking simply conforms the religion to the pre-existing biases and beliefs of the believer. Kumbaya!

Now, actually believing the WHOLE of the Bible? That takes a combination of guts and ignorance in equal portion.

[hrmjustin]

110. I think it takes guts to believe and nit to believe in many parts of this world.

Here in NYC I don't have to worry about guts.

Call me whst you want but my faith is this;

I believe in the Trinity.

The death and resurrection of Christ.

The love and mery of God.

I am an inclusive person and I think God is too.

[stopbush]

112. I lived in NYC for 12 years. Made my living singing, often in churches.

In fact, I probably sang at your Episcopal church at some point.

I have no problems with what you wish to believe. That's your right in this country. That doesn't mean that I have to believe that there's any factual basis for your religion/faith. I respect your right to believe. I just don't respect the beliefs themselves, anymore than I respect the beliefs of the supply siders and warmongers.

[hrmjustin]

113. I understand how you feel.

[cbayer]

119. Why would a cherry picked faith be a cheap commodity.

You are taking the same position as fundamentalists. Most believers are much more thoughtful than that and are able to take what makes sense and leave what does not. They are not one way kinds of people who think that they must conform, even when it doesn't make sense to them.

Nothing wrong with kumbaya. It's much better than war.

[stopbush]

120. Because it demands nothing beyond the cherry picker's opinion.

And everyone has an opinion. How "thoughtful" does one have to be to agree with themselves?

No effort required, intellectually or morally.

[cbayer]

121. Where did you get the idea that something must be "demanded" in order

for it to be meaningful?

Does your position on religion demand anything of you? Or do you hold your position with no effort required, either intellectually or morally?

[stopbush]

125. I was explaining why I called faith cheap.

Sure, something can be meaningful without it making a demand, motherly love, for example. But most things that are worthwhile in life have some kind of price attached to them, and I don't mean a monetary price.

As far as my position on religion demanding something of me, sure it does. Non-believers/atheists are one of the most-reviled groups on American society. If you're open about your non-belief, you're going to be ostracized nine times out of ten. If you keep quiet about your non-belief in an effort to just get along, you censor yourself, a demand never made of the religious, who are allowed - indeed, encouraged - to speak publicly about their beliefs.

In either case, you're a de facto second class citizen, simply for not believing in make believe (ie: religion).

[cbayer]

128. I don't know about that.

I was hugely entertained, awed and inspired by watching a humpback whale in an indescribable 45 minute display last week. It demanded nothing of me and was extremely worthwhile.

I'm not sure where this idea that for something to be worthwhile it must have a price attached to it comes from, but I don't ascribe to it.

And I certainly don't think it is a foundation for religious belief or faith.

What you describe is prejudice against atheists, which is real. Fortunately, the tide is changing on this and I believe that it will follow much of the same path that GLBT civil rights have. That is, I think atheism will be normalized, and while there will still remain some who do not accept atheists, the bulk of the population will see it as just another normal variation when it comes to religious beliefs.

So, let's work together to make that happen. I tell you what won't help it happen, though - calling religious beliefs make believe and railing against the religious texts that are meaningful to others.

Unless, of course, one subscribes to the "eye for an eye" philosophy, which appears to be the case here.

[stopbush]

136. Religious beliefs aren't make believe - people hold them and some firmly believe them.

But religion itself is based on make believe.

Why shouldn't enlightened people point out that simple fact? People believed Saddam had WMD. He didn't. The belief was based on a lie promoted by bushco. Should we not have called out that lie and instead allowed people to cling to their lie-based beliefs?

What Biblical fallacies do you feel must be allowed to stand without challenge? The flat Earth? The idea that evil spirits cause disease? The earth is the center of the universe? The stars are little points of light attached to a solid "firmament" that surrounds the Earth? Do we ignore pointing out Biblical stupidities that science has revealed?

How about archeology and geology? Do we ignore the evidence there as well? You know, things like the Exodus never occurring, or the town of Nazareth never existing until the 4th century? The Exodus story is probably THE founding myth of Jewish identity, yet it never happened. Jesus was supposedly from Nazareth, yet the town didn't exist. Do we continue to promote the fables just so people don't get their religious panties in a wad?

And what of the things that common sense tell us just don't happen, like thousands of people coming back from the dead and wandering the streets of Jerusalem as zombies when Jesus was crucified? Or Jesus being resurrected. along with Lazarus? Like changing water into wine in a heartbeat? Like curing people of blindness by sticking mud in their eyes, or driving their evil spirits into a herd of swine and sending them off a cliff to their deaths? One could gone on, but it would take a whole book (and besides, that book already exists. It's called the Bible).

At what point does one reach critical intellectual mass and decide, "man, that's a lot of bullshit. I'm now questioning the whole thing?" People take such an attitude in many things in life - politics, relationships, etc. But unlike religion, there's no threat of eternal damnation for chucking out other beliefs. There's very little guilt imposed by family and society for changing your mind if you switch political parties. But declare you're no longer religious, and you're ostracized.

Faith is the ability to believe things are true even after they've been proven to be untrue. Why should anyone respect such a conceit?

[cbayer]

138. You can't legitimately say that something is make believe unless you

have evidence that it does not or can not exist. Your WMD analogy is faulty. There were people who purposefully lied and what was believed was ultimately found to have been untrue based on evidence.

Otherwise, its just an opportunity to mock and dismiss religious believers.

You can say that it is based on faith and that there is not hard evidence to support it. Most believers would agree with that and be unlikely to be offended.

I don't believe any biblical fallacies should be left standing without challenge. If there is clear scientific evidence that contradicts a biblical interpretation, science wins.

But there are many things in the bible and other religious texts that can not be called fallacies because there is no evidence to dispute them at this time.

It's not about "promot(ing) the fables just so people don't get their religious panties in a wad" (such a juvenile way to put this), it's about having the decency to allow people to believe what they do when you have no justification for attacking it.

Just as you have the right to say "man, that's a lot of bullshit. I'm now questioning the whole thing?", others have the right to say that they find meaning in the texts and to have religious beliefs. Your POV does not trump theirs.

There is "very little guilt imposed by family and society for changing your mind if you switch political parties"? Are you kidding. In my family this would be a much bigger deal than changing one's religion. A MUCH bigger deal.

Faith is about believing things that have not been shown to be true. It is not about believing things that have proven to be untrue. If you have any such "proof", state it. Otherwise, the conceit is all yours.

[Warren Stupidity]

139. Saddam's WMD have still not been proven to not exist.

"But there are many things in the bible and other religious texts that can not be called fallacies because there is no evidence to dispute them at this time. "

You have me on ignore but I'd love to see the list of "things in the bible that can be called fallacies because there is no evidence to dispute them".

Please proceed.

[stopbush]

140. Here's one for you: the Virgin birth of Jesus.

Last edited Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

We know from religious and linguistic studies that the mention of the supposed virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14 is a fallacy. The word "virgin" doesn't appear in the original Hebrew texts. It only appears because the Septuagint incorrectly translates the Hebrew word for "young woman" (almah) into the Greek word for virgin (parthenos). The story in which that mistranslation occurs has nothing to do with prophecy of the birth of a Messiah. Those are facts that are not in dispute. That those facts aren't generally known to people doesn't make them nonfactual.

The idea of a virgin birth never appears in the writings of Paul. Neither does it appear in the Gospels of Mark or John. The writer of Matthew - who was a Greek or at least read Greek - relied on the bad translation of the Septuagint as his source for the claim of the virgin birth of Jesus. The Gospel of Luke also says there was a virgin birth of Jesus, though Luke's details differ from those of Matthew. Luke was based on Mark, the Q and possibly Matthew.

The idea of the virgin birth of Jesus is enshrined in the Apostles Creed, which many Xians dutifully recite every Sunday.

Most Xians firmly and even vociferously believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. They believe in a concept that has been shown to be nothing but a mistranslation. It is a basic article of faith for most Xian sects that Jesus was born of a virgin. I had a DUer aver in a thread the other month that even though he knew the concept of the virgin birth was based on a mistranslation, he still believed firmly in Jesus being born of a virgin.

So why doesn't the Church admit the facts and toss out the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus? Why not embrace what any first-year seminarian knows to be the case? Why not amend the Apostles' Creed to omit the specious reference to the virgin birth?

Because religious faith often demands willful - even studied - ignorance, that's why.

Here's a thought; rather than believing the lie that Jesus was born of a virgin, why not put the whole fable in context for people? Why not explain that lots of non-Xian gods and god-men were claimed to have been born or a virgin: Bacchus, Mithras, Osiris, Dionysus, Buddha et al. Rather than continuing to make claims about Jesus based on a mistranslation, why not put the whole virgin birth dogma into historic perspective for Xians? Why not explain that it was said that Julius Caesar was born of a virgin?

Does it matter that Xians believe such a lie? Of course it does. It reinforces belief in miracles and supernatural events that have no basis in the rational world nor even in the religious texts themselves. Yet such beliefs are promoted, lest Xians get their panties in a wad over their fable-based beliefs being attacked.

The Catholic Church avers that whenever science proves something in the Bible to be not factual, the Church must accept the science and change. Why don't they apply that same respect for knowledge to the study of language and history?

[edhopper]

141. You really don't get the basic

idea of critical inquiry.

" You can't legitimately say that something is make believe unless you

have evidence that it does not or can not exist."

An improbable claim remains improbable and there is no reas9on to accept it as real unless there is evidence to support the claim.

So to say something is make believe because of a complete lack of supporting evidence is the correct way to look at it.

The fact that there is no corroborating evidence for any supernatural event ever occurring is evidence that it doesn't exist.

You seem to want to ignore the concept of burden of proof or the principle of "extraordinary claims".

[cbayer]

142. That's right, ed. I really don't get the basic idea of critical inquiry.

And you really don't get the distinction I make.

Not accepting something as real unless there is evidence is fine and makes sense. Calling it make believe takes it a whole different step.

That is a definitive position in which you are stating that the story is, in fact, not true. Do you see the difference between that and not accepting it as real?

Lack of corroborating evidence is not evidence of non-existence. That's an illogical argument.

The burden of proof argument is useless in this particular debate. There is no proof. That's the whole point. One can either choose to believe based on faith or choose not to believe or land somewhere in between.

Such a silly argument. No winners, no losers. Just let people believe or not believe as they personally see fit.

[edhopper]

143. I thought we were talking about

many of the Biblical stories, which would fall under the make believe category, with no supporting evidence and quite a bit of archeological and historical evidence against it.

Not your vague, nebulous concept of God that never interacts with the physical Universe.

[cbayer]

144. Stories are stories.

The degree to which they have any factual basis is likely to vary a great deal. But without evidence that they have no underlying truth, calling them "make believe" is simply derogatory.

[edhopper]

145. Would mythical

or allegorical suit your disposition better?

[cbayer]

146. My disposition? I don't know about that, but allegory, metaphor, story, parable

and even myth are words that I use and no one seems offended.

I don't run into a lot of literalists or people that claim that the bible is authoritative. Most recognize that while there may be some link to a true story, most of it is stories of one kind or another.

I guess I am particularly sensitive to the use of words that are clearly meant to mock, if that's what you mean by my disposition.

[edhopper]

147. Yes

I was talking about fictional stories vs actual occurrences. And the people that believe these fictions occurred . I was using the term 'make believe' because that was what was being referred to in the thread.
I would normal use one of the words you mentioned.

Of course I have no problem mocking some one who think Noah and the Flood happened or that Adam and Eve lived in Eden as described in the Bible.

[cbayer]

149. I'm not going to be in total agreement with you about "fictional".

While some clearly are, I would be more circumspect about throwing the whole bible in there.

Noah? Eden? I don't believe it, but as long as someone doesn't try to substitute it for science, why would I mock them?

I have a friend who things this huge crater in Nevada was created by Disney. I have other perfectly sane friends who believe they have been contacted by something other worldly. I don't see it that way, but I'm not going to bother arguing with them about it or mocking them.

Why would I?

[edhopper]

150. Because you live in a World where

What people believe has no effect on how they behave or what they support.
Some of us live in the real world where belief is a precursor to action,and false beliefs leaf to harmful and disastrous consequences.

[cbayer]

151. I understand that some beliefs have important and deleterious effects

on behavior and politics. I'm a strong supporter of standing up when those beliefs do harm.

You don't think I live in the real world? Well, that's not very nice.

[edhopper]

152. Well if you think somebody that doesn't understand

Planetary impacts, or thinking they are communicating with imaginary beings isn't harmful, I'd say you aren't considering the real consequences.

[cbayer]

153. Ah, and we were having such a nice, civil conversation.

I've worked with seriously psychiatrically ill people for a very long time. I have a very high degree of tolerance and religious people don't even come close to what these people experience.

Like I said, when people's beliefs become harmful to others or cause them to become unable to safely care for themselves, I will be very clear and very vocal in my intervention.

But otherwise, I really am a live and let live kind of person.

Sorry if you find that unacceptable.

What do you want to do with them, anyway?

[edhopper]

154. I think it's a matter of challenging beliefs that are patently untrue

Such as the ones you describe. Now social dicorum dictates that there are times we just let things alone. but if someone wants to engage in a conversation or proclaims something about things of this kind, I see no reason not to point to the errors in their thinking.
I often find myself in situations explaining why Loch Ness, Bigfoot or UFOs don't exist.
With religion, I usually find that it is a more delicate subject.
How you react to these things is up to you.

[cbayer]

155. Pointing out errors or challenging someone is not the same thing as mocking.

It might even lead to some productive and educational information exchange. Mocking never does.

Of course it's up to me just like it's up to you. I would just prefer to build bridges if there is an opportunity to do so.

Clearly with some people, that opportunity is non-existent. I don't consider you one of those people though, and have enjoyed talking with you.

[edhopper]

156. Mocking is reserved to the patently ridiculous beliefs

Creationism, Bible literalism, Fox News.

The Daily Show does a fairly good job of mocking things that deserve it.

It's also for those who are not going to change their minds due to facts or reason, mocking is a method of pointing out to others how ridiculous the person's position is.

[Warren Stupidity]

148. and with that, the entire category of "fiction" was wiped out.

[Starboard Tack]

123. And are you not also cherry picking?

Do you think all the "law" of the bible is on the level of how much you can get for your daughter? You accuse the Jews of committing genocide. Does this somehow justify their persecution?
You sound as extreme as the other side of the equation.

[stopbush]

166. I'm not accusing the Jews of committing genocide. I'm reporting what the Bible says they did.

It's the Bible that reports that Yahweh ordered Israel to visit genocide on their neighbors - kill all the men and animals but keep the women and girls as prostitutes. That's exactly what the Bible says god ordered and what Israel did.

From my perspective, none of that really happened. It's just stories made up to make Israel appear to be a nation made mighty because god was behind them. It's make believe, along with the supposed persecution the Jews received when they were captive in Egypt, because they were never captive in Egypt, there was no Exodus. Again, more stories of "the mouse who roared" ilk. Make believe. There's absolutely no archeological evidence to support the Biblical account of the Jews living in captivity in Egypt. No mention of it in the Egyptian records, which were detailed and copious. No evidence whatsoever of the Exodus (where's the garbage? 40 years of a million people wandering in the desert, but no garbage?). BTW - the Biblical account of the population of Israel when they exited Egypt puts the number of Jews at DOUBLE what the number of Egyptians would have been at that time, at least if modern historians are to be believed.

It's fiction. Period.

The Bible is what is "extreme," not me.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. all the horrible and goofy parts are "metaphor" and only a vanishingly small bit of all christians

and jews actually take those sections literally. Or so we are told here over and over again. The fact that liberal Christians are a small minority amidst a see of literalists and conservatives is no deterrent to the Official Line.

[stopbush]

109. Q: What's the definition of a "religious metaphor"?

A: a religious belief once held to be factual, but since disproved by science, logic or reason.

[Warren Stupidity]

114. or something so horrendous to modern sensibility that it has to be disappeared.

[hrmjustin]

126. Actually in my church we are in the majority.

[Warren Stupidity]

130. Across all christian denominations in the US, "liberal christians" are a distinct minority.

The is a repeated and false effort here to portray conservative theism as a negligible minority faction when in fact they are most definitely in the majority.

[hrmjustin]

131. Really. Are you talking about the people eho make up the denomination or the

denomination as an org?

[Warren Stupidity]

132. No. ACROSS ALL DEMONINATIONS.

Add up all the Christians in the US. Identify the ones that are "liberal Christians". They are a distinct minority.

[cbayer]

118. Of course one has to cherry pick.

It's the only way to get the good fruit and avoid that which is gone bad.

The books are full of contradictory and out-dated information. They can't be taken literally.

Of course you have to leave out parts so that it conforms to a more enlightened age. You say that like it's a bad thing.

You certainly do have some rigid and dogmatic ideas about a book that you don't even embrace. What's with that?

[stopbush]

122. From that perspective, most of the Bible is rotten fruit.

So why bother even looking for the few pieces of good fruit? There are better places to look for moral guidance.

And while we're on the subject of fruit, one bad apple spoils the barrel. That's especially true of the Bible. One may believe that Jesus was a benevolent person who embraced all mankind, but his words put the lie to those ideas. The basis for his philosophy was the Torah, and he never deviated from that outside of embracing the age-old tenet of reciprocity, ie; the Golden Rule. That OT ethos is one of misogyny, racism, slavery and god-demanded genocide. Jesus never opposed any of that. And neither did Paul, who even went as far as to instruct people on how to treat their slaves.

Jesus made a scourge for himself and set about beating his fellow human beings with it. Was that the action of a non-violent person? Go ahead, supply your religious excuse for that loathsome action by gentle Jesus, meek and mild.

Tell me, should Americans cherry pick the Constitution? If not, why not? If so, why?

[cbayer]

124. No, it's not mostly rotten fruit, though there is some in there.

You are the true cherry picker here, only looking for the bad things. If you don't see any of the good, that's cool. If you have other places to look for moral guidance, go for it. But while so judgmental of those who are different than you?

Oh, goody! I get to use the "false equivalence" meme!

The bible and the constitution are not remotely the same things and can't be compared in any way. If you can't see the differences, I really can't help you out here.

[stopbush]

127. Of course the Bible and the Constitution have similarities.

Both were written entirely by men, without any guidance from the invisible sky god.

Both reflect the ethos of the time in which they were written.

Both set out a basis of law for people to follow, making some things legal and others illegal.

I could go on.

No one said there aren't differences. Thank the make-believe sky god for the differences! Could you imagine what it would be like if this nation was a Bible-based theocracy? Heaven isn't a democracy, you know. It's a kingdom. No votes in heaven. No self-determination. Why would any democracy-loving person want to spend an eternity in a dictatorship? How can any freedom-loving person embrace the teachings of the Bible?

[cbayer]

129. Ok, let's go through this.

Constitution - written by a group of men who came to a full agreement on the content.

Bible - written by lots and lots of different men, most of whom never even spoke to each other and lived in different centuries.

Constitution - reflected the ethos of a specific time in history.

Bible - reflect the ethos of an incredible range of points in history.

Constitution - sets out a basis of law for people to follow and has within it mechanisms to change or re-interpret it.

Bible - has laws scattered all through it, many of which are totally inconsistent and even contradictory. Has not mechanism to change it, but has always lent itself to individual interpretation.

I could go on.

No, I can't imagine what it would be like to live in a bible-based theocracy and am committed to keep that from ever happening.

I have no idea what a heaven might be like, since I don't believe in it. Interesting that you can so specifically describe a place that you apparently don't believe in either.

Lot of democracy and freedom loving people embrace teachings found within the bible, including our current president and lots of very good DU members.

And you don't. So what?

[stopbush]

167. Of course it's mostly rotten fruit.

And I'm not just talking about the OT. The NT is a horrible set of books as well.

Maybe you're one of those people who believe the OT is kinda rotten, but then, gentle Jesus, meek and mild came along with his 'love thy neighbor" spiel and made it all better. Such a view ignores most of what Jesus actually said in addition to the love-thy-neighbor spiel. He really was quite a loathsome creature. After all, he's the only figure in the Bible who says that any person who doesn't declare him to be his lord and savior is condemned to an eternity in hell fire. Not even good 'ol boy Yahweh went to that extreme.

Jesus is the person who told a woman begging him to heal her sick daughter that helping a non-Jew like her would be equivalent to taking food out of the mouths of ones children and throwing it to the dogs. He tells her he was sent to help the Jews, not non-Jews like her.

Yep, Jesus is pretty rotten as well.

[cbayer]

168. Jesus is pretty rotten and a loathsome creature? Wow, that's a stretch.

But it certainly helps me understand where you are coming from here.

[stopbush]

169. Apparently, you've not read his words.

Here's but a few examples:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. - Matthew 10:34-37 Speaks for itself. loathsome stuff.

"Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." - Matthew 19:29 Forsake your family and Jesus will reward you a hundredfold.

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:16 BTW - this passage uses the Greek word "miseo," which translates as "hate." But the "hate" in the word miseo probably has to do with separation, not psychological hatred. In my book, requiring people to separate from their immediate families in any way to become Jesus' disciple is pretty loathsome.

"He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal." - John 12:25 Don't enjoy living or you're going to hell when you die.

"And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." - John 12:47-48 Jesus won't judge you if you reject him, but his father in heaven will. It's a promise.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:17-19 So much for getting to cherry pick the parts of the Bible you don't agree with.

Then, there's the whole "have no care for the morrow" bull. Good advice for those with the responsibility of raising a family, no?

Like I said, pretty loathsome.

[cbayer]

170. Cherry picking for the rotten cherries.

Your filters are thick and your distortions remarkable.

All the commandments: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and so on, are summed up in this single command: You must love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus Christ

Best wishes to you and yours.

[stopbush]

171. Distortions? Spoken like the true religious apologist

who ignores the plain meaning of words and instead looks to twist or ignore those words to fit their portrait of Jesus as Mr Wonderful.

Case in point, you conflate two different quotes by Jesus in an attempt to make your point. The actual quotes found in Matthew are:

"And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." - Matthew 19:16-19

Here, Jesus is supposedly citing the Ten Commandments, but he only cites five of the ten, and those five are entirely secular in nature. Notice that Jesus doesn't here mention honoring god or making no graven images or keeping the sabbath. The "sixth" commandment he cites - Love they neighbor - isn't among the Ten Commandments.

The second quote is:

"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 'Master, which is the great commandment in the law?' Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." - Matthew 22:35-40.

BTW - Jesus is quoting Leviticus 19:18 when he says, "Love they neighbor as yourself." That particular quote is Yahweh speaking to Moses. The "love thy neighbor" thingee didn't originate with Jesus.

Importantly, Jesus says the first great commandment is to love the Lord God, which means that you follow the law laid down by the lord god in all its particulars. Only after that does one consider the second great commandment.

Like most people who haven't studied the Bible in any depth, you're confused about what was actually uttered by Jesus. I can't blame you for that. Most people have a rather malleable knowledge of the actual phrases and context of the Bible.

[cbayer]

174. Ok, I'm an apologist and you are a religophobe.

Frankly, I'd rather be an apologist because my strongly democratic/christian upbringing imbued in me the need to argue for the rights of others and specifically to do so when their rights were being attacked or they are being treated unfairly based solely on what they believed.

Nothing in my upbringing taught me that hatred, bigotry or intolerance was a good thing, particularly when it came to people's religious beliefs.

But then Jesus was a monster and we are so fortunate that some others have seen that and can be more christlike than christ himself.

[stopbush]

175. I'm more of an anti-theist than a religophobe.

I think the world would be a better place would religion just go away. That's not happening any time soon, though one can hope the worldwide trends away from religion continue to blossom.

BTW - my feelings about religion aren't based on ignorance but on study. I'm no longer able to suspend disbelief to embrace the make believe that girds most religious thought. That doesn't mean that religion isn't an interesting subject to study, as long as one sees it largely as a study of fiction, rather than history.

Yes, Jesus was a monster. Anybody who believes that man is basically evil is thinking monstrous thoughts. Anybody who declares that they and they alone are "the way" is a megalomaniac.

Q: do you believe that we are all born into sin and in need of salvation from our basic nature? Do you look at a newborn and see evil incarnate?

[cbayer]

176. Religonophobe, anti-theist - it's all the same ugly crap, imo.

As per my previous description, I think you can believe or not believe in anything you want. And I don't care if you base it on study or not. It only comes down to your personal belief. You are neither more right nor more wrong than anyone else.

I'm not a believer and I was never taught anything about original sin, although I was raised in a parsonage. What you refer to is not true for all denominations and I have absolutely no interest in either defending it or attacking it.

At any rate, I would suggest to you that if your goal is to move people away from religion, you might consider not calling their hero a monster and a megalomanic. That seems relatively elementary to me.

[stopbush]

177. You act as if I'm the only person who thinks Jesus in a monster.

How about the great Xian writer and apologist CS Lewis, who wrote the following in his book, Mere Christianity?:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

Lewis, of course, believes Jesus was god, so he neatly squares the circle of his polemic that Jesus was a lunatic or worse.

But where does that leave us who do not believe Jesus was god incarnate? Well. we're left with Lewis' rather insightful words about who and what Jesus actually was when shorn of his godhood - a lunatic, a madman, and definitely not a great human or moral teacher.

That's what's elementary to me.

[cbayer]

178. Oh, no. I am very aware that you are not the only one.

What possibly gave you that idea.

You are, fortunately, in a really small group and one towards which there is growing criticism within the atheist community, particularly among younger atheists.

Again, you can believe or not believe anything you want and use anything you want to back your position.

However, I suggest that no one will listen to you when you take the position that their hero is a lunatic and madman.

I guess you would either need to revise your goals or your methods.

[stopbush]

179. No comment on Mr Lewis' thoughts?

I also notice you opted not to comment on my post about the virgin birth, which was posted as a direct response to one of your challenges.

Odd, that, as you seem to have a comment on most everything else.

[cbayer]

180. I'm not a defender of specific religious beliefs and have no interest in

entering that kind of debate with you. I don't give a crap about Mr. Lewis's thoughts or the virgin birth.

I am a defender of people's rights to hold specific religious beliefs as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.

It's not odd at all. I comment on what I find important and relevant. The endless and useless debates about things like original sin and the virgin birth interest me not at all.

[stopbush]

181. If you're not interested in debating things like the virgin birth

then why opine that faith isn't believing in things that have been proven to be false? You said that I needed to show an instance where people believed something that had been proven to be false. You issued a challenge and I provided that example with a recap of how the the dogma of the virgin birth came to exist. Seems to me you had no problem engaging in that debate. Seems to me you're naive to think you can engage in a religious discussion and not have a specific religious dogma pop up as a subject of the discussion.

Am I to assume that you are in the habit of posing challenges/questions then ignoring responses that answer your challenges? Pretty gutless stuff.

As to defending a person's right to believe what they will, there's nothing in the Constitution that says anyone needs to respect any beliefs of anyone. The stricture in the First Amendment applies to Congress making no law to establish a state religion or to hinder people from exercising their religious belief. The stricture is on Congress, not the populace.

That's what's at stake in the Hobby Lobby case before the SCOTUS. HL is claiming that through the ACA, Congress has passed a law that is "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religious beliefs, which are anti-choice.

I guess it's nice that you personally choose to defend people's rights to hold specific religious thoughts as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. That begs the question: what religious thoughts don't in one way or another infringe on the rights of someone? Probably a pretty short list that.

[cbayer]

182. Because faith isn't believing in things that have been proven false.

I never told you to do that and I fully support pushing back when people hold beliefs that I think have been proven false (e.g. creationism).

You have your own theory about the virgin birth and it may be shared by others, but it's not proof.

Yes, I am naive and gutless. And totally done with you for now.

Adios.

[trotsky]

133. Who gets to decide what is a good fruit and what's bad?

You?

[Warren Stupidity]

134. it depends on the argument being made

in general, if somebody cites an appallingly horrible or goofy section of the bible, that "fruit" rots on contact.

[trotsky]

135. It goes like this:

If you take a part of the bible seriously (even just as a thought experiment) that I don't think should be taken seriously, then you are a LITERALIST ZOMGWTFBBQ!

[Act_of_Reparation]

137. It all stems from a disturbing lack of critical evaluation

That there are a few "good" cherries here and there doesn't speak to the overall quality of the tree. If I have to sift through bushels of rotten fruit to find the good bits, is it dishonest to say the tree, in general, bears rotten fruit? I think not.

But some would argue that the "good" bits are pretty spurious themselves, that after a close inspection what is actually said isn't really all that great at all.

And I would argue that such a discussion becomes pointless, because if one has to read each passage and objectively evaluate whether or not they are bad or good, then what the fuck is the Bible for? To have our preexisting moral positions confirmed by a collection of ancient myths?

[EvilAL]

59. Was was he doing

for the eternity before that?

[hrmjustin]

60. Another great question.

I don't have that answer.

[EvilAL]

61. I do.

Nothing.

[hrmjustin]

62. We disagree.

[EvilAL]

63. You don't wonder

what a God that must have created itself was doing for billions of years? creating the universe? nah, that only took a week. So what the hell has God been up to for billions of years?

[hrmjustin]

64. I never said I don't wonder.

I said I don't know.

[EvilAL]

66. Do you have a hypothesis

or anything? I'm not looking for a definite answer that would explain everything, just what do you think he was doing all that time? My guess is that if such a being existed for billions of years, he must have been doing nothing for 99.99999999999% of that time. If you go by what this being supposedly created, either by starting the Big Bang or the Genesis account, it wasn't doing a whole lot.

[hrmjustin]

67. I assume he found something to do.

[EvilAL]

68. hahah, ok then..

Have a nice day.

[hrmjustin]

69. You too.

[cbayer]

70. He might be addicted to Sudoku like I am.

That is an enormous time waster.

Or he might have found another game to play, like posting on DU. That can eat up years of your life.

[EvilAL]

71. hah, yeah

Judging by your post count you probably have worn out your fingerprints..

[cbayer]

72. Much of that is from years as a moderator.

Thousands of posts containing 5 letters or less.

[tblue37]

79. I am an atheist, but in a multiverse, a god would hardly run out of things to do prior to creating

just one of a supposedly infinite number of universes.

[AlbertCat]

158. Interesting question.

Not really.


Since there zero supernatural crap associated with the Big Bang theory.

[hrmjustin]

159. I like to think God got the ball rolling on it.

[AlbertCat]

161. I like to think God got the ball rolling on it.

So, who created god....where does he come from?

Actually, forget that too. There's simply no need for a god or anything supernatural. If there's a mystery, just say "I don't know" instead of plugging in some supernatural crap made up by some caveman?

[hrmjustin]

162. Well I believe there is a God.

I have faith he exists.

[Goblinmonger]

4. Yeah, writers of Iron Age stories understood the Big Bang.

Let's try a little harder to make religion and science mesh.

Maybe Jesus getting out of the tomb was actually him finding a worm hole.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Bingo.

In order that something be considered metaphor, the author must know what he or she is analogizing. It is clear from the content of Genesis that it's author had no fucking idea what they were talking about. At the very least, it could be argued it was the best explanation a primitive people living in a primitive place and time could be expected to formulate. But that just means it is a bullshit explanation; no more enlightened or insightful than anyone else's bullshit.

[pinto]

10. Yeah place, time and context count. Doesn't make it bullshit. Just what it was.

I don't get your blanket dismissal of 1st century or earlier concepts.

[skepticscott]

20. It's not a dismissal of "earlier concepts"

It's a dismissal of your attempt to conflate myth and science, and to imply that maybe, just maybe there is a connection, when there isn't.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. I'm not dismissing "early concepts"

I'm only dismissing those that are demonstrably bullshit.

Time and context only count to excuse the bullshitters for not knowing any better, but not the bullshit itself. Genesis was wrong fifteen hundred years ago, and it is still wrong today.

[pinto]

9. That was not my point Goblinmonger.

The Big Bang and Genesis both speak to the beginning of the known universe. Just thought it was an interesting side note.

And yeah, there may be a mesh with the two points of view. That was what I meant. I've no dog in this religion/science squabble, save for some discussion.

[AlbertCat]

160. The Big Bang and Genesis both speak to the beginning of the known universe.

Actually Genesis doesn't speak very much about the beginning at all. It just basically says "god did it"...which of course means "We got nothin'".

[pinto]

164. Yeah they do. It's an interesting parallel.

I've no clue to who did it, why, when, where or how. Or if anyone did it.

[struggle4progress]

7. I thought something like that when I was in elementary school, but I read differently now

[rug]

11. It's an interesting speculation but I don't think so.

[pinto]

12. Yeah, of course it's just speculation. What caught me was those guys in the eastern Mediterranean

saying "In the beginning". It's a temporal statement. As is the Big Bang. For some reason I find it fascinating. No more nor less.

[pinto]

13. Stepping out. Actually sleeping out. Mild night, stars and all that.

Later. I enjoy the discussion.

[left-of-center2012]

14. ?????

What existed before that point in time?
If 'nothing', out of what did the 'Big Bang' originate?

[AtheistCrusader]

36. No space. No time. Quantum fluctuations.

Given that the net energy of the universe appears to be zero, quantum fluctuations can produce a universe of, what appears to us all, as matter an energy.

[stopbush]

81. Lawrence Krauss explains it in "A Universe From Nothing."

It's a scientific explanation.

[LiberalAndProud]

15. Yes. The Genesis story is entirely scientific.

First God separated the day from the night. Then God created the sun. Science.

[Warpy]

16. No

In any case the Sumerians wrote that part and it was more that the gods (yes, plural, "elohim" in the Hebrew text) probably needed to see what they were doing.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Why not? Both try to explain why we are here and...

hint about what is the nothing that would be here if there were no universe.

As it is, science still has absolutely no idea how we got here-- what existed prior to the big bang, how many universes are there, what's beyond the end of the universe...

A lot of questions are never going to be answered by science, so what's wrong with answering with philosophy, or religion. The religious answers don't have to be "scientific truth" but just something we can live with and use in our daily lives.

[uriel1972]

19. Because that's what I call a lie...

Saying "I don't know" is a much better answer.

[mr blur]

21. ^This^

Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of. Willful ignorance is.

[TreasonousBastard]

32. You do realize that it is impossible for our species to...

observe a phenomenon and just shrug it off?

We see the tides ebbing and flowing, the planets moving in a pattern different from the stars, the first blooms of spring... and we ask why. If, at the time, we are only capable of attributing it to the gods, who does that hurt?

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. Who does it hurt?

Ask Gallileo.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. That's a separate problem with our species.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. Would you care to qualify that statement?

The antecedent is not clear.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. It ends inquiry.

Assuming a false conclusion means you don't dig any further.

[cbayer]

45. Assuming any conclusion can often lead to an end to inquiry.

Proof only applies to math. All other scientific findings should remain open to further examination.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. That's the thing. They are.

We re-visit assumptions and 'proven theories' all the time.

How many people re-visit 'god did it' when they honestly accepted that as a cause, in the first place?

[cbayer]

48. It is erroneous to assume that religious people don't question or

didn't come to their belief walking down the same hard roads that many atheists have.

There are lockstep people in all camps who have assumed their position because it was the easiest one to take.

And there are others who have thought long and hard about it.

It is those that have decided they no longer need to ask question or re-visit their assumptions that are the most problematic, imo.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Let's see Michael Behe walk back some of his irreducibly complex claims from the Kitzmiller

trial, and see him drill deeper into how the bacterial flagellum works.

So far, he hasn't.

That's the 'halt' to inquiry I'm talking about. He can, apparently, go no further. Other scientists have, with ease, at the same time he testified they couldn't.

[villager]

51. Exactly. Rigid, tight-sphincter'd, blinder'd thinking can appear anywhere...

Realizing we've inherited a (flawed but fascinating) lore/myth cycle from our ancestors, who also struggled to make sense of the universe in no precludes asking more questions now.

As to the argument "but look at the rigid institutions allowed to grow up around those stories and texts!," well, look at the institutions that were allowed to grow up around the U.S. Constitution: NSA, CIA, Pentagon, the Fed, et al.

In the end, it's really all about who does the interpreting.

[cbayer]

52. Agree. I find dogmatic thinking and rigid stances very disturbing. (nt)

[trotsky]

190. Well, except when they're *your* dogmatic thinking and rigid stances.

Then you're just being reasonable, and everybody else is whacked.

[AlbertCat]

163. Proof only applies to math.

And the evidence for the Big Bang was math....which led to scientists looking for what the math proved COULD exist.... and found it.

See that's the thing about a good theory: it makes predictions that later turn out to be observed and true.

[cbayer]

165. Ah, AlbertCat! That's so cute, you trying to teach me about science and stuff.

[AlbertCat]

187. trying to teach me about science and stuff.

Well, you don't seem to "get" it.... big time.



Adios...

[cbayer]

188. That's because I'm scientifically illiterate.

(just in case you don't "get it&quot

Adios to you as well!

[pinto]

189. LOL.

[cbayer]

191. He really got me on that one!

[trotsky]

192. Well yeah, he kinda did.

You've been on DU a long time, cbayer. There are plenty of your posts from which to draw the obvious conclusion that while you may not be scientifically illiterate, you definitely don't understand as much science as you think you do.

[pokerfan]

58. Tides come in tides go out. You can't explain that.

[cbayer]

65. Please, please, please tell me that he didn't actually say that!

[pokerfan]

73. I could but I would be lying

O'REILLY: I'll tell you why religion's not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.
SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out?
O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/oreilly-god-causes-tides_n_805262.html

[cbayer]

74. And we are worried about the religious right not getting evolution?

[LostOne4Ever]

23. I would rather say I don't know

Rather than cling to something that could very well be wrong.

At one time no one knew why the sun would occasionally disappeared mid-day. They came up with the explanation of a celestial dragon trying to eat the sun. A few millennium later we call it an eclipse and now that dragon answer looks pretty silly.

[TreasonousBastard]

33. It may have looked silly to them at the time, but...

that's the best they could do.

If you were the king back then and your people were terrified of eclipses, could you simply say "I don't know"?

[AtheistCrusader]

39. Yes. I could also set about trying to understand eclipses.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. "that's the best they could do."

No really it wasn't. At least it wasn't considering what other people were doing with cosmology in the ancient world. Genesis is just run of the mill creationist mythology. It might have been "the best they could do" circa 500 BCE, not by CE standards.

[stopbush]

83. On the contrary, science has a very good, in-depth idea of "how we got here."

We may never know what existed before the Big Bang. That piece of eternal ignorance doesn't add a shred of credibility to the Biblical accounts of creation and "the beginning." Religion isn't a valid answer to that which science has yet to discover. It's not even a placeholder.

What's wrong with answering the scientifically yet-to-be-learned with religion? Depends on how adept you are at lying to yourself and believing the lie.

[TreasonousBastard]

89. There is no way to prove or disprove that "God" is...

a being, or even a force, in a universe in a higher dimension, or that the Big Bang (only a well-accepted theory, btw, with multiverses and other hypotheses still contending) was directed by "someone".

However, the point isn't to give credibility to Genesis any more than to that Hindu idea of the Earth standing on an elephant. Understanding Genesis as an allegory is one way to go, but more to the the point is that it was as close as we got to science back in those days and it slowed down the questions, and fears, early populations had.

It sounds great to talk about "science", but, aside from how few people on the planet can understand relativistic equations, science falls short when dealing with basic societal problems and relations. Where is science on how to keep a marriage happy? The arguments over the death penalty? Dealing with the end of life? Ethics and morality in general? How to keep a poker game friendly? I know, there are "studies" all over the place dealing with these issues, but not that many can help when trying to referee a fight between farmers and cities over diminishing water supplies.

Science has answers, but we tend to look elsewhere when dealing with our usual problems.

[stopbush]

93. Agreed. It's not a 50-50 proposition that god exists and was involved in creation.

I give god about a 3% chance of existing, and about a .05% chance of being involved in creation, as we know that the universe could well have come from nothing. Fairies and werewolves have a better chance of being real.

As Laplace said, there's really no need for god in the hypothesis.

[cbayer]

96. How do you figure that fairies and werewolves have a better chance of being real?

If the LaPlace story is accurate, and it may not be, he was saying that god was not necessary for the specific hypothesis he was presenting.

But, apparently, he never denied the existence of a god. In fact, another quote of his is:

"Christianity is quite a beautiful thing".

Was he also responsible for the fascist philosophy contained in the Bible, or does he get a pass?

[stopbush]

111. What conceit allows you to believe that god has a better chance of existing than fairies

or werewolves?

Seriously.

BTW - a black hole is a beautiful thing. That doesn't mean one should get too close to one.

[Warren Stupidity]

115. faeries and werewolves are far less ridiculous.

[cbayer]

117. What conceit allows you to believe that they are equally possible?

Seriously?

Comparing people's beliefs in god to the belief in fairies of werewolves is a juvenile attempt to minimize and mock.

I have no idea why your warning about black holes is about. Why would you think I might get close to one?

[Lordquinton]

18. No

Genesis is a story, passed down through the years, like many creation myths. It takes from many that came before it in the region and blends it into one story.

The Big Bang was an actual occurrence that we have detected and have some working theories about. It is not the beginning of the universe, but rather it is the beginning of time as we know it.

[BillStein]

92. Actually, it blends them into two stories

Two distinct creation myths in Genesis

[LostOne4Ever]

22. Aren't you more or less

Trying to make the evidence fit the conclusion rather than the conclusion fit the the evidence with this argument?

I could say, for example, that Greek Mythology's Chaos fits the big bang theory far better than "God created the Heavens and the earth." How many religions can simply claim, "oh my god did that!"

Not to mention that both narratives kind of fall apart after that. Lets be fair to all sides here. There is nothing in Genesis to remotely suggest it was talking about the big bang.

If you want to believe god started the big bang, then that is your prerogative, but its basically comes down to a do you believe in a prime mover argument. There is no evidence either way and we are all left back at square zero with everyone saying stating beliefs with no evidence.

If we are going to go that route, I could say "there is no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end. When we all disintegrate it will all happen again. "

Sorry nearly broke out into song

[stopbush]

86. Science attempts to show whether something is true. Religion attempts to show why something is true.

The world would be spared a lot of misery if religionists occasionally asked whether things were true, especially their beliefs.

[LTX]

172. An almost perfect example of scientism --

You express here a fundamental misconception of the design and purpose of science, one that is all too common. And much of the reductive commentary throughout this thread tracks this misconception with rather appalling singularity (if I may toss in a bad pun).

[stopbush]

173. How so? Without an explanation, you're engaging in drive-by posting.

It should be easy for you to explain what you mean.

[LTX]

183. It is dreadfully slippery

once you begin down the slope of claiming that science deals with "truth." Science is an effort to provide explanations of material events. Hypothesis, observation, falsification, and repeatability in experimentation are the crux of the methodology.

Science does not seek, in the philosophical or theological sense, "truth." It seeks evidentiary confirmation of tangible phenomena. That is largely why mathematics is not science. Mathematics deals with the immaterial, and while a useful tool in scientific inquiry, it is ultimately inapposite to the scientific method as a direct consequence of its search for "proofs" (a definitionally narrower adjunct to the broader concept of "truth.) It is my view (and I am certainly not alone) that those who attempt to elevate science beyond its methodological constraints are engaging in scientism, especially those who ascribe to science (and juxtapose that ascription against philosophy and theology) the notion that it is a mechanism for determining what is "true."

You will not find a rational scientific mechanism for determining the distinction between "good" and "evil," just as you will not find a rational scientific mechanism for making "value" determinations in law, philosophy, theology, or secular moralism. The "value" in enforcing contracts, or imposing tort liability, is simply not within the purview of science.

[stopbush]

184. You're confusing "truth" with what is "true."

I said science proves whether something is true. I said nothing about truth. They are different things.

It's true that the sun rises in the morning. The sun rising in the morning does prove the truth of the statement "god makes the sun rise in the morning."

You got all worked up because you made a mistake in comprehension.

true adjective \ˈtrü\
agreeing with the facts : not false; real or genuine; having all the expected or necessary qualities of a specifed type of person or thing

truth noun \ˈtrüth\
the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true; the quality or state of being true; a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true


plural truths

Full Definition of TRUTH

1
a archaic : fidelity, constancy
b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2
a (1) : the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics>
c : the body of true statements and propositions
3
a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality

[LTX]

186. Sophistry. n/t

[pinto]

185. I meant to note the similarities, not equate them. Did it poorly, but some good discussion's ensued.

(Is that a line from a song?)

[trotsky]

24. Sure I guess.

I mean, there was water before the first stars formed and died and made heavier molecules like oxygen, right? Just like in Genesis?

It's an interesting story just like every culture's creation myths are interesting stories. We humans are curious animals and sometimes like to make up answers to satisfy our own curiosity. However it's important we don't try to muddle the difference between myth and science.

[goldent]

25. Almost by definition the Big Bang is the Genesis of the universe

although I won't vouch for the details of the 7-day creation

I think the Big Bang won't be the last religious concept confirmed by science.

[trotsky]

28. The Big Bang wasn't a religious concept. n/t

[goldent]

75. The concept expressed in Genesis was that the universe had a beginning.

This was at odds with mainstream scientific thinking, until the Big Band Theory came along.

[Goblinmonger]

77. Oh sweet Jesus.

Read a goddamned book, will you.

Native American Creation Myths This is just one site. There are more with similar themes. Something from nothing was not a particularly new literary trope at the time of Genesis. Just stop it. At least the Native American tribes didn't steal their stories from other cultures like Genesis did. (this search took my, seriously, 2 seconds):

Apache
Myth 1: In the beginning was only Tepeu and Gucumatz (Feathered Serpent). These two sat together and thought, and whatever they thought came into being. They thought Earth, and there it was.

Myth 2: In the beginning nothing existed, only darkness was everywhere. Suddenly from the darkness emerged a thin disc, one side yellow and the other side white, appearing suspended in midair.

Chelan
Long, long ago, the Creator, the Great Chief Above, made the world. Then he made the animals and the birds and gave them their names

[goldent]

78. Hey, I didn't say Genesis had exclusive rights to the concept that the

universe had a beginning. I couldn't be happier that other religions/traditions spoke of it. What is puzzling is why science took so long to get it.

[trotsky]

90. I repeat, the Big Bang was not a religious concept.

Nor was it "confirmed" by science.

[Feral Child]

26. No.

One is mythology.

The other is an accepted scientific theory.

Any attempt to equate the two is merely "search and rescue" for theology, saving superstition from the reality of scientific fact. The two views of the universe are mutually exclusive. In order to bend the science to allow for a "God" catalyst, you have to trash Christianity/Judaism/Islam et al, which is no solution for those-who-need-to-believe-they're-special.

Saying that "God" (or "gods&quot initiated the BB is just a cop-out.

Reality is so much more pure and venerable.

[Iggo]

29. No.

[unblock]

30. genesis is really about the dawn of human civilization

the little bit prior to adam and eve is just a prelude, setting the stage.

to dwell on it is to miss the point.

the big bang, and everything up to the dawn of cilivilization was "in the beginning".

[edhopper]

31. Which "In the Beginning"?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.


In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. So there was evening, and there was morning, one day.


Any of that jibe with the Big Bang from the original singularity the size of a marble without a using tortured logic?

[jeepnstein]

40. Probably.

All the rest of it is legalistic arguing over time lines. In my experience as a Christian as a church leader I find that the ones who spend the most time arguing about stuff like this fall into two classes. The first are the non-believers who have anger directed towards the Church. The second are the believers who insist on stuffing God into a box so they can conveniently put Him on a shelf and use Him like a playground toy.

[Act_of_Reparation]

41. "Non-believers who have anger directed towards the Church"

Poison wells much?

[jeepnstein]

42. Not so much these days.

There are plenty of non-believers out there who don't fall into that very narrow class I mentioned. There are some, though, whose venom just drips from every word. I'm sure they have their reasons. And when it comes down to it I'm really pretty interested in what those reasons might be. But I do have to consider the source when they offer a critique of my religion.

[cbayer]

43. How does that poison the well?

Do you disagree that there are atheists who have anger towards religion?

[Act_of_Reparation]

47. Because it is a perfect example of poisoning the well.

"There's no reason to listen to people who debate x, because they are either y or z."

Or do you think a person's alleged motivations are sufficient reason to disregard their arguments?

[cbayer]

49. I didn't read her post as saying there was no reason to listen to them,

only that her observation that that those that argue about this tend to be of one of two groups.

I stil don't see how that would "poison the well".

No, I do not think someone's alleged motivations are sufficient reason to disregard their arguments.

[cbayer]

44. Fascinating discussion going on right now on "Forum" on exactly this subject.

[Goblinmonger]

53. That's some rally the troops code language there, isn't it?

The discussion is not about this specific topic. It's about building on this topic and seeing how ridiculously we can twist the Bible to make it line up with current scientific knowledge. One of favs to this point is that Pilate washing his hands is proof of knowledge of germs.

[pinto]

54. Just coming back in here. Perhaps I should clarify - what strikes me is the parallel.

Both speak to a beginning of time and what we experience as matter, light, life. Not that they are one and the same. Yet both point to a singular event. And both arose out of the concept of a beginning or essentially "defined" the concept. We realize that there was a starting point.

I'm probably not articulating this very well, but I find it fascinating. We all experience time as linear. Day follows night, etc. To expand that to say there was a time before time is another thing. It recognizes that it wasn't always this way and, likewise, may not always be this way.

The universe(s) aren't static. Change happens. And I've no clue to the why or wherefore. Appreciate all the comments here. I wanted to initiate an open ended discussion.

[Goblinmonger]

55. Problem I have is this. Maybe I can make it more clear.

That can be said for pretty much any creation myth. There are countless Native American creation myths where they discuss things coming from nothing. It's not a new concept to Genesis. Genesis pretty much rips off other creation myths from the area as well.

But what really gets me about this type of thing (and this isn't you particularly or this specific thread praticularly) is that people work so damned hard to make the bible fit what we know now and that just isn't the case. Somebody with a bent to writing "well" wrote about something coming from nothing. That's not particularly new nor inventive in the world of literature even at that time. And it in no way is a reflection on the concept of what we now know is the big bang.

[pinto]

57. See your points. And largely agree. Lots of creation stories in different cultures.

And the area has a lot of trading, adopting, rewriting of them all. As far as re-interpreting the bible to meet current knowledge or a certain point of view, I'm sort of eh about it. Has probably been happening since the books were written.

Don't want to drag this out. My interest and the opening query - Both Genesis and the Big Bang interest me. So, I thought of them comparatively. Thanks for your comments.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

76. Maybe!

[mmonk]

91. The Priest that came up with the Big Bang theory

advised the pope at the time not to make declarations it proves Genesis.

[CFLDem]

102. No

One is borne of scientific observation and the other is Bronze Age mythology.

[tridim]

103. If it was, "God" would have said so.

Turns out he didn't know anything about the Universe. He didn't really mention it.

[Gore1FL]

106. No.

This is the real creation story:

[Kablooie]

107. If we live in a multiverse, and it's looking more likely that we are...

The big bang was just "Once more with feeling..."

[Prophet 451]

157. I think so

In my personal view, it was god who created the singularity which then expanded into the first Big Bang ("first" because I am also a believer in the cyclical universe model).