What do the major religions say about the Big Bang

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:tells me.

As in it helps me understand your position better now.

It's standard Catholic catechism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, raised Catholic and "love and joy" was not discussed, except in the context that God loved us and wanted us to be happy with him in heaven -- the rest was doctrine on what to do (and not do) to assure a place in heaven and not in hell.

There's no disagreement that there is a scientific basis for the big bang and no scientific basis for transubstantiation. The church accepts one and not the other.

No, the Church wouldn't expect transubstantiation to be detected by weighing or chemical analysis or anything like that. If you're interested, there are ways for adults to learn more about Catholic teaching, or, failing that, you might want to read Stephen Jay Gould on the idea of "non-overlapping magisteria". As for what individual Catholics may say, the Church has both simple, ordinary people and sophisticated intellectuals; it sometimes seems that the simpler people are more likely to be saintly.

This isn't really an appropriate forum for getting into further discussions of Catholic teaching, so I'll exit, wishing you well.

I know quite a lot about Catholic teaching and am surprised you refer to Steve Gould who was a scientist, not a theologian and not a Catholic, who was simply expressing his opinion that science and religion shouldn't overlap. Many of his fellow scientists saw it as a cop-out - a way to avoid the obvious fact that religion can't be explained by scientific means. Sounds like scientists come in handy when they make Catholicism look good (or avoid making it look bad).

Why are Catholics so proud of accepting the the science of the big bang, but then claim "non overlapping magisteria when transubstantiation comes up? One accepts science, and the other defies it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, raised Catholic and "love and joy" was not discussed, except in the context that God loved us and wanted us to be happy with him in heaven -- the rest was doctrine on what to do (and not do) to assure a place in heaven and not in hell.

There's no disagreement that there is a scientific basis for the big bang and no scientific basis for transubstantiation. The church accepts one and not the other.

No, the Church wouldn't expect transubstantiation to be detected by weighing or chemical analysis or anything like that. If you're interested, there are ways for adults to learn more about Catholic teaching, or, failing that, you might want to read Stephen Jay Gould on the idea of "non-overlapping magisteria". As for what individual Catholics may say, the Church has both simple, ordinary people and sophisticated intellectuals; it sometimes seems that the simpler people are more likely to be saintly.

This isn't really an appropriate forum for getting into further discussions of Catholic teaching, so I'll exit, wishing you well.

I know quite a lot about Catholic teaching and am surprised you refer to Steve Gould who was a scientist, not a theologian and not a Catholic, who was simply expressing his opinion that science and religion shouldn't overlap. Many of his fellow scientists saw it as a cop-out - a way to avoid the obvious fact that religion can't be explained by scientific means. Sounds like scientists come in handy when they make Catholicism look good (or avoid making it look bad).

Why are Catholics so proud of accepting the the science of the big bang, but then claim "non overlapping magisteria when transubstantiation comes up? One accepts science, and the other defies it.

Not pp. You have some big questions, why don't you seek out a priest or Catholic theologian and ask. I am not equipped to answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:tells me.

As in it helps me understand your position better now.

It's standard Catholic catechism.

It is not. Maybe it was when you went through, and that is what gives me insight to your position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, raised Catholic and "love and joy" was not discussed, except in the context that God loved us and wanted us to be happy with him in heaven -- the rest was doctrine on what to do (and not do) to assure a place in heaven and not in hell.

There's no disagreement that there is a scientific basis for the big bang and no scientific basis for transubstantiation. The church accepts one and not the other.

No, the Church wouldn't expect transubstantiation to be detected by weighing or chemical analysis or anything like that. If you're interested, there are ways for adults to learn more about Catholic teaching, or, failing that, you might want to read Stephen Jay Gould on the idea of "non-overlapping magisteria". As for what individual Catholics may say, the Church has both simple, ordinary people and sophisticated intellectuals; it sometimes seems that the simpler people are more likely to be saintly.

This isn't really an appropriate forum for getting into further discussions of Catholic teaching, so I'll exit, wishing you well.

I know quite a lot about Catholic teaching and am surprised you refer to Steve Gould who was a scientist, not a theologian and not a Catholic, who was simply expressing his opinion that science and religion shouldn't overlap. Many of his fellow scientists saw it as a cop-out - a way to avoid the obvious fact that religion can't be explained by scientific means. Sounds like scientists come in handy when they make Catholicism look good (or avoid making it look bad).

Why are Catholics so proud of accepting the the science of the big bang, but then claim "non overlapping magisteria when transubstantiation comes up? One accepts science, and the other defies it.

Not pp. You have some big questions, why don't you seek out a priest or Catholic theologian and ask. I am not equipped to answer.

theologian not needed. It's pretty obvious that it makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:tells me.

As in it helps me understand your position better now.

It's standard Catholic catechism.

It is not. Maybe it was when you went through, and that is what gives me insight to your position.

Catholic doctrine has changed? I thought it was eternal.

[Anonymous]

[b]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:tells me.

As in it helps me understand your position better now.

It's standard Catholic catechism.

It is not. Maybe it was when you went through, and that is what gives me insight to your position.

Catholic doctrine has changed? I thought it was eternal.

The way CCD was structured and taught has changed.

[Anonymous]

Catholics highly value education. Some of the world's finest scientists were catholic clergy. This is in part because for centuries, higher education was limited to the clergy class.

The current pope has a science background - Chemistry I believe. That doesn't stop him from believing in transubstantiation and the big bang at the same time and he is a wonderful Pope.

People who can't understand how sophisticated, educated Catholics can hold two opposing ideas in their heads at the same time probably are not cut out to be Catholics. They might benefit, however, from talking to a priest or theologian who could try to explain to them how they do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[b]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:tells me.

As in it helps me understand your position better now.

It's standard Catholic catechism.

It is not. Maybe it was when you went through, and that is what gives me insight to your position.

Catholic doctrine has changed? I thought it was eternal.

The way CCD was structured and taught has changed.

but surely the doctrine hasn't changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[b]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:tells me.

As in it helps me understand your position better now.

It's standard Catholic catechism.

It is not. Maybe it was when you went through, and that is what gives me insight to your position.

Catholic doctrine has changed? I thought it was eternal.

The way CCD was structured and taught has changed.

but surely the doctrine hasn't changed.

It hasn't, but I was talking about how this pp's experience with Catholic education helped shape her opinion of the church.

Yes, raised Catholic and "love and joy" was not discussed, except in the context that God loved us and wanted us to be happy with him in heaven -- the rest was doctrine on what to do (and not do) to assure a place in heaven and not in hell.

[Anonymous]

I believe they think whatever way it came to be God was behind it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's called the 'big bang THEORY' for a reason. Because that's all it is. No more fact-based than creationism or anything else.

no, that's absolutely wrong. Creationism is a story made up 1,000's of years ago by a small group of humans in the middle east. There are many creation stories, developed independently by many different cultures through the ages.

The big bang theory is based on scientific evidence developed through scientific means and accepted by scientists worldwide.

The big bang theory is also made up by a small group of humans. Man has always tried to make sense of how and why we are here. It is pure hubris to think a current theory is any closer to the truth.

[Anonymous]

Big Bang ? Like that explains the existance of existance?

[Anonymous]

Did the Big Bang create matter ,math and physical order? Is that your belief ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the Big Bang create matter ,math and physical order? Is that your belief ?

You can add time and space and love and consciousness and life to that.