Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Big Bang worship  (Read 853 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Neil Obstat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18177
  • Reputation: +8276/-692
  • Gender: Male
Big Bang worship
« on: June 26, 2016, 06:31:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Worshipers of the so-called big bang fulfill the prophesy of St. Paul in Rom. 1:25

    Quote from: Romans chapter 1, verse 25

    Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.



    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3298
    • Reputation: +2082/-236
    • Gender: Male
    Big Bang worship
    « Reply #1 on: June 27, 2016, 04:11:22 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    Worshipers of the so-called big bang fulfill the prophesy of St. Paul in Rom. 1:25

    Quote from: Romans chapter 1, verse 25

    Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.



    .


    The first ever evolution theory was the Nebular theory, based on Copernicus's heliocentrism. The Nebular theory was extrapolated to the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is based on an expanding universe. Copernicus in his book said if the world was spinning around the earth, like spinning fairground chairs, the universe would tend to push out, expand. But that was geocentric, biblical reasoning and who wants that nowadays?
    When popes accepted heliocentrism they were then trapped into Big Bang evolutionism. So, just as they tried to make the condemned heliocentrism LOOK CATHOLIC, now they have to make imbecilic Big Bang EVOLUTION look Catholic.

    Pathetic.

    Pope Pius XII; Speech to Pontifical Academy of Sciences:November 22, 1951.

    ‘44. It is undeniable that when a mind enlightened and enriched with modern scientific knowledge weighs this problem calmly, it feels drawn to break through the circle of completely independent or autochthonous matter, whether uncreated or self-created, and to ascend to a creating Spirit. With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter bursting with energy. In fact, it would seem that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial “Fiat lux” uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies.’

    Pope Francis and the God of Cosmologists and Evolutionists

    ‘Vatican City, 27 October 2014 (VIS) – This morning the Holy Father attended the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences held in the Casina Pio IV, during which he inaugurated a bust of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI, whom he described as “a great Pope. Great for the strength and penetration of his intelligence, great for his important contribution to theology, great for his love of the Church and of human beings, great for his virtue and religiosity”. He recalled that Benedict XVI was the first to invite a president of this Academy to participate in the Synod on new evangelisation, “aware of the importance of science in modern culture”.
         Pope Francis chose not to focus on the complex issue of the evolution of nature, the theme the Academy will consider during this session, emphasising however that “God and Christ walk with us and are also present in nature”. “When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining God as a magus, with a magic wand able to make everything. But it is not so. He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and to arrive and their fullness of being. He gave autonomy to the beings of the Universe at the same time at which he assured them of his continuous presence, giving being to every reality. And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or a conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

    Thus Genesis is subjected to Big Bang evolution. But evolution never ends contradicting Genesis and a host of Dogmas on God as Creator. Eg.,

    The Seventh Day, God Rests

    2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and wall the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

    ‘Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that we can refer “not improperly” to the initial singularity [the Big Bang] as an act of creation. What conclusions can we draw from it? That a Creator exists? Suppose still, for the sake of argument, that this, too, is conceded. The problem now is twofold. Is this creator theologically relevant? Can this creator serve the purpose of faith?
         My answer to the first question is decidedly negative. A creator proved by [Big Bang] cosmology is a cosmological agent that has none of the properties a believer attributes to God. Even supposing one can consistently say the cosmological creator is beyond space and time, this creature cannot be understood as a person or as the Word made flesh or as the Son of God come down to the world in order to save mankind. Pascal rightly referred to this latter Creator as the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not of philosophers and scientists. To believe that [Big Bang] cosmology proves the existence of a creator and then to attribute to this creator the properties of the Creation as a person is to make an illegitimate inference, to commit a category fallacy. My answer to the second question is also negative. Suppose we can grant what my answer to the first question intends to deny. That is, suppose we can understand the God of [Big Bang] cosmologists as the God of theologians and believers. Such a God cannot (and should not) serve the purpose of faith, because, being a God proved by [Big Bang] cosmology he should be at the mercy of [Big Bang] cosmology. Like any other scientific discipline that, to use Pope John Paul II’s words, proceeds with “methodological seriously” [Big Bang] cosmology is always revisable. It might then happen that a creator proved on the basis of a theory will be refuted when that theory is refuted. Can the God of believers be exposed to the risk of such an inconsistent enterprise as science?’  
    (Marcello Pera: The god of theologians and the god of astronomers, as found in The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp.378, 379.)


    Offline Prayerful

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1002
    • Reputation: +354/-59
    • Gender: Male
    Big Bang worship
    « Reply #2 on: June 27, 2016, 10:44:45 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The originator of the Big Bang theory was a Belgian Catholic priest Monseigneur George Lemaître and Pope Pius XII was notably supportive as it neatly reconciled science and religion on one topic. Monseigneur Lemaître wasn't overly enthusiastic about overt religious support as he wanted his theory to stand scientifically, and not to have religion and science carelessly admixed.