The Universe did not have an absolute begining?

[Gorgias]

ngill

**You’re displaying a perfect example of moving the goalposts, by the way. **

You’re the one who said:

**So you’ve backed off from “The Bible is absolutely true and the inspired word of the Creator of the Universe!” to “Well, it at least has an order of events?” **

I never said the Bible is absolutely true in every respect. You’re the one who moved the goalpost.

:slapfight:

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen!

Before we get all testy with one another, let’s define terms: Catholics agree that the Bible is ‘absolutely true’. Where we disagree is in the way that we assert truth to be understood in this context: are we talking about ‘historically true’? Literal, on-the-face of the text truth?? Or perhaps a truth that is expressed by means of various modes of literature (poetry, narrative, tales, etc)?

In other words, saying “the Bible is absolutely true and is the inspired word of the Creator of the Universe” is hopefully something that every Catholic – every Christian! – should profess…!

 

[meinfinitist]

“Where we disagree is in the way we assert truth to be understood -----”
My evolutionary brain says oh oh- we are back to manipulating interpreters!

 

[inocente]

inocente
**
There’s no science there, it’s not at all profound, just how any of us would imagine it. **

Other than Genesis, show me any religion or philosophy in the history of the world that said the universe began with a burst of light.

Genesis doesn’t say anything all all about a burst of light. It says that the lights are “to separate the day from the night” and to “serve as signs to mark sacred times” and to mark off the “days and years”. Which is appalling bad science.

It says that the Moon and Sun are one kind of light and the stars are another. Again, appalling bad science, these days every school kid knows the Moon is a lump of rock and the Sun is a star (and a very average star at that).

I mean, thanks for continually pointing out that Genesis is appallingly bad science, but I think we’ve all got that message now.

Nope, he gave the caution for a much more important reason - he was concerned to prevent his pope making a grave error which would bring the Church into disrepute.

Well, yes partly that would have been his motivation at the time that Pius XII spoke. But by the time of Lemaitre’s death, just a few years later, the confirmation of the Big Bang was pretty fully established, so that the connection with Genesis was no longer in doubt. The universe** did** have a beginning in time.

Why pick out Genesis? You may not be aware there are dozen of religions with creation myths - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

 

[inocente]

:slapfight:

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen!

Before we get all testy with one another, let’s define terms: Catholics agree that the Bible is ‘absolutely true’. Where we disagree is in the way that we assert truth to be understood in this context: are we talking about ‘historically true’? Literal, on-the-face of the text truth?? Or perhaps a truth that is expressed by means of various modes of literature (poetry, narrative, tales, etc)?

In other words, saying “the Bible is absolutely true and is the inspired word of the Creator of the Universe” is hopefully something that every Catholic – every Christian! – should profess…!

But it seems Catholics disagree about the nature of the truth. The following, from catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847, indicates that poster Charlemagne II is what’s called a concordist, while Lemaître was definitely not:

*Despite his unquestionable scientific credibility, Lemaître’s priesthood often led skeptics to question his theories, believing the Big Bang was “presented in a spirit of concordism with the religious concept of creation, and even received its inspiration from that religious concept.” Concordism is the belief that the Bible contains scientific information not known by people at the time of the writing of the sacred texts. Even Professor Einstein confronted Lemaître on this issue. Not surprisingly, Father Lemaître had an excellent response to such critics:

“Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity.”*

I’d hope we can all agree that’s true, that believing in Genesis as science is not at all necessary for salvation.

 

[meinfinitist]

Is there a list of mortal sins?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Is there a list of mortal sins?

Whether a particular act is a mortal sin, a venial sin, or no sin is a lengthy discussion. But, briefly a mortal sin must involve serious matter, one must be fully aware ( prior to consent ) that it is a serious matter, and one must give full consent of the will to the act.

Some acts are serious by nature, some by intent and/or circumstances.

So, no, there is not a complete list by the nature of things. One must learn by reflection on the Commandments, since all sins follow upon the Commandments. If you would read the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will have a better understanding. Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
Genesis doesn’t say anything all all about a burst of light. It says that the lights are “to separate the day from the night” and to “serve as signs to mark sacred times” and to mark off the “days and years”. Which is appalling bad science.

It says that the Moon and Sun are one kind of light and the stars are another. Again, appalling bad science, these days every school kid knows the Moon is a lump of rock and the Sun is a star (and a very average star at that).**

This is appallingly bad biblical interpretation. You have confused verse 3 with verse 16. The creation of light on the first day is not the same as the creation of light (sun, moon, and stars) on the fourth day. The creation of light on the first day is more consistent with what Carl Sagan talked about in Cosmos.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[meinfinitist]

Whether a particular act is a mortal sin, a venial sin, or no sin is a lengthy discussion. But, briefly a mortal sin must involve serious matter, one must be fully aware ( prior to consent ) that it is a serious matter, and one must give full consent of the will to the act.

Some acts are serious by nature, some by intent and/or circumstances.

So, no, there is not a complete list by the nature of things. One must learn by reflection on the Commandments, since all sins follow upon the Commandments. If you would read the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will have a better understanding. Linus2nd

I read your answer, and i respect it. When i go look at the Catechism will i find a list of
serious matters that are often mortal sins? If not, where should i look?

 

[meinfinitist]

I went to look.
The simplest i can explain it is my resistance to dogma 1 and 2.
You say nothing-something.
I say something-something.
What hurts me is your punishment system for non conformist and non believers.

 

[inocente]

inocente
**
Genesis doesn’t say anything all all about a burst of light. It says that the lights are “to separate the day from the night” and to “serve as signs to mark sacred times” and to mark off the “days and years”. Which is appalling bad science.

It says that the Moon and Sun are one kind of light and the stars are another. Again, appalling bad science, these days every school kid knows the Moon is a lump of rock and the Sun is a star (and a very average star at that).**

This is appallingly bad biblical interpretation. You have confused verse 3 with verse 16. The creation of light on the first day is not the same as the creation of light (sun, moon, and stars) on the fourth day. The creation of light on the first day is more consistent with what Carl Sagan talked about in Cosmos.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Good grief.

We are taught to hear the bible through the ears of the original audience. What did Genesis 1 mean to them, those thousands of years ago? It would be ludicrous to think they shared Sagan’s understanding of gamma and infrared radiation, completely ludicrous.

I had assumed Catholics were taught something similar. Oh yes, here it is:

*CCC 109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.

CCC 110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”*

And while we’re there, your Church teaches that Christ, not Carl Sagan, must open our minds to understand scripture:

CCC 108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”

So don’t argue this with me, argue it with your own Church.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I read your answer, and i respect it. When i go look at the Catechism will i find a list of
serious matters that are often mortal sins? If not, where should i look?

The only other place to look is the constant teaching of the Church. For example, All Christians are obliged to practice putritry and chastity in thought, word and deed according to their state in life. A single person who knowingly and full consent of will takes pleasure in impure thoughts, words, or deeds commits a mortal sin. Married folks may not engage in artificial birth control. Or, those who intentionally take an innocent human life commit a mortal sin ( this includes procured abortion.).

The short answer is no, there is no place where you find a complete list. That is why I said you have to study the Catechism. This is part of what is meant by " forming ones conscience " according to the teaching of the Church. It is a learning process and takes time. And as long as one is making a sincere effort to be " formed " one may be guided ones conscience.

I can understand how it must be confusing to one outside the Faith or just new to it. But really, it is the only way.

Linus2nd

 

[meinfinitist]

Thank you for a nice answer.
I just can’t take Genesis 1 as a solid.
I see infinity as my solid.
In my logic nothing times something is nothing.
Something times something is something.
We have some agreement, your something something is what you see as God.
My evolutionary brain says “don’t hurt”, i don"t need a complicated story, that i see, as being built on sand.

Thank you.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

We are taught to hear the bible through the ears of the original audience. What did Genesis 1 mean to them, those thousands of years ago? It would be ludicrous to think they shared Sagan’s understanding of gamma and infrared radiation, completely ludicrous.

Nobody said they did. “Let there be light” is a metaphor, not a scientific theory.

And while we’re there, your Church teaches that Christ, not Carl Sagan, must open our minds to understand scripture:

“True science to an ever-increasing degree discovers God as though God were waiting behind each closed door opened by science.” Pope Pius XII

 

[inocente]

Nobody said they did. “Let there be light” is a metaphor, not a scientific theory.

So just to be clear, are you saying that the original audience, all those thousands of years ago, on hearing that line didn’t actually think:

“Ooooh, that’s obviously a metaphor for electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths emanating from all parts of the sky in rapidly expanding space, and which predated planet Earth by many billions of years even though that contradicts what was just said a moment ago about the Earth being created first”

but instead might have thought something more like:

“Ooooh God said, Let there be light; he willed it, and at once there was light. Oh, the power of the word of God! Obviously a metaphor for in a new creation, the first thing that is wrought in the soul is light: the blessed Spirit works upon the will and affections by enlightening the understanding. Those who by sin were darkness, by grace become light in the Lord.”

(with apologies to Matthew Henry)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

The writer of Genesis was not working from a scientific manual. You might at least concede that.

 

[Gorgias]

I’d hope we can all agree that’s true, that believing in Genesis as science is not at all necessary for salvation.

I can certainly agree with that!

However, ngill’s statement seemed to create a false dichotomy: either claim that the Bible is scientifically true, or claim that the Bible is not divinely inspired and completely true. That dichotomy fails. Even if the Bible isn’t trying to be a science book, it is still completely true! It’s truth comes from the message that God was trying to give humanity; that message isn’t necessarily always one of science, or of historicity – sometimes, yes, but not in every book, chapter, and verse – but it always tells the ‘truth’.

That’s all I was trying to get at (even if Charlemagne, too, was being a little sloppy with his use of the word ‘truth’ and therefore backing down from using it)…!

 

[ngill09]

I can certainly agree with that!

However, ngill’s statement seemed to create a false dichotomy: either claim that the Bible is scientifically true, or claim that the Bible is not divinely inspired and completely true. That dichotomy fails. Even if the Bible isn’t trying to be a science book, it is still completely true! It’s truth comes from the message that God was trying to give humanity; that message isn’t necessarily always one of science, or of historicity – sometimes, yes, but not in every book, chapter, and verse – but it always tells the ‘truth’.

That’s all I was trying to get at (even if Charlemagne, too, was being a little sloppy with his use of the word ‘truth’ and therefore backing down from using it)…!

If I told you the world was covered in water a few thousand years ago, and this never happened, would I be telling you the ‘truth’?

I think your standard would result in pretty much nothing being considered false.

 

[meinfinitist]

Well after the claims, counterclaims, where sense is in the brain of the beholder,
the most serious, in my mind, sin of the Church is child abuse.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

If I told you the world was covered in water a few thousand years ago, and this never happened, would I be telling you the ‘truth’?

In Noah’s world there was a flood that covered all the world as he knew it. So yes, he would have been telling the truth.

 

[Gorgias]

If I told you the world was covered in water a few thousand years ago, and this never happened, would I be telling you the ‘truth’?

Aah… that would depend on the mode in which you told me! If you were sitting behind the news desk at CBS, then I’d say that you weren’t telling the truth. On the other hand, if you were standing on stage at a poetry slam, and expressed the truth that God created everything from nothing, using the words of Genesis 1, then I’d be able to consider the possibility that you were telling the truth. And, if I believed that you were divinely inspired to tell the truth that God created everything from nothing and allowed you to express that truth in the manner of your own choosing, then I would be quite likely to tell you that this is the truth.

I think your standard would result in pretty much nothing being considered false.

Not at all. Could this standard be misused? Of course. Could there be misinterpretations that lead people to come to incorrect conclusions? Yep. Is there something within Catholic doctrine that takes these questions into account? You betcha.