God was behind Big Bang, pope says

I really dont have the time to research all of your replies only to find that everything you are references is considered a "widely accepted hypothesis". This does not constitute fact nor does it rule out any other possibilities.

but as for MrXYZ - why didnt they list the dating method used? all they stated was that they are XX years old as if it were a fact - remember man isnt honest.

This is exactly what is going on in the scientific community, these terms are being twisted from hypothesis to fact and the integrity of these fields should be questioned and i ask that you consider digging deeper than what is brought to the table by one point of view.

and i apologize for getting the posts and replies mixed up - got a little excited

Originally posted by Methuselah
I really dont have the time to research all of your replies

Yeah, wouldn't want that fantasy land you have in your head get destroyed by reality, right?

Modern science has so many dating methods nowadays, claiming the earth is only 10,000 years old in the 21st century only shows one thing...the public school system is seriously failing in some countries/areas.

In case you can be bothered, and want to deny ignorance by learning about all the various methods:

LINK

Also, if you believe science is "just making stuff up", you should read up on scientific methods as I don't think you fully grasp how science operates. LINK

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

And yes, I'm aware that Hebrew names also happen to be words in Hebrew.

Well theres your meaning. These names are also words, and thus qualities or states. Meaning is there for those who can actually read Hebrew and understand the basics of Kabbalistic exegesis. Clearly you understand nothing.

Soooo...you're just going to go with special pleading again? You're stating all of this, but I'm actually asking where the allegory is. You can't just give the bullet points?

How would you like me to give bulletpoints?

• Adam means "i am blood" or "i have blood". Dam in Hebrew, blood, implies life. Thus, Adam is a man, or state that recoginizes its own life or existence; ie; self consciousness.
  
  Thats all for now. Im not gonna go through the esoteric of this for someone like you.
  
  
  

  
  
  Asking where an allegory is doesn't happen to be arrogant. I was curious where you found an allegory in all of that immorality.
  

  Pretending to know what youre talkng about is arrogant. not acknowledging your inherent fallibility, is arrogant. I never said i understand the Kabbalah totally. But i read Hebrew, i have a hundred + books on the subject and even than i know my limits. You seem to imagine yourself an authority in whatever topic you come across. Even here, a subject you obviously know very little about.
  
  
  

  
  
  Evidence, you've not provided any for any of your statements.
  

  
  
  I said read the ARI, or Moshe Cordevero, or some of the Chassidic greats. Much of it is hinted at in their writings. and it is much too complex to get into with a person who simple desires to crticize, rather than understand and embrace.
  
  
  

  
  
  Anyone who understands quantum physics knows that you cannot transform the physical through mental means.
  

  
  
  Ok..... I reckon you have never in your life read an occult book; and if you had, never experimented with its teachings. This is quite real. I really am amuzed by your ignorance, and or, put on. Even CG Jungs theory of the unconscious posits a psychic substance - called an archetype - that is able not only to influence consciousness, but physical matter as well (read wolfgang paulie and his colloborative 'the interpretation of nature and psyche")... Its these archetypal forces which enable man to manipulate physical reality. In the case of a man able to transform something in thought - a visual, into something else. That requires a very high degree of spirituality which can only usually be achieved through asceticism.
  
  edit on 21-1-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)
  

reply to post by Methuselah


Ohh you "don't have the time" do you. How convenient. I suggest you build up your knowledge of science and the real world before you try to troll any more arguments

reply to post by dontreally


Why is it, that people who are into the occult always make the most outrageous statements (manipulate consciousness and the physical world), yet when you ask them to prove it...no one comes forth. They're happy to write books about it to make money, but actually SHOWING this in a way that would prove it's not a magic trick or lies is off the table it seems

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

And yes, I'm aware that Hebrew names also happen to be words in Hebrew.

Well theres your meaning. These names are also words, and thus qualities or states.

...no, that would only be if they were qualities or states explicitly. Take the name 'Smith', it's a job not a quality or state. Now, if you could demonstrate how the words are qualities or states explicitly, I'd love to hear it.

Meaning is there for those who can actually read Hebrew

Or have a handy reference to actually understand Hebrew.

and understand the basics of Kabbalistic exegesis. Clearly you understand nothing.

No, I understand Kabbalistic hooey. I say hooey because that is my opinion of it after having learned about it. And you clearly don't understand logical fallacies, as you keep repeating the logical fallacy of special pleading. If I understood nothing, you could simply explain to me how I'm wrong.

Soooo...you're just going to go with special pleading again? You're stating all of this, but I'm actually asking where the allegory is. You can't just give the bullet points?

How would you like me to give bulletpoints?

In the way that follows.

• Adam means "i am blood" or "i have blood". Dam in Hebrew, blood, implies life. Thus, Adam is a man, or state that recoginizes its own life or existence; ie; self consciousness.
  

I do know that the noise 'dam' and 'dem' tend to mean blood in semitic languages. Hell, I'm actually a speaker of a semitic language. But where are you getting the subject and verb from? "A" couldn't be enough to translate into "I am" or "I have" in any language I know of.

Thats all for now. Im not gonna go through the esoteric of this for someone like you.

Wow, harsh. Someone like me? You mean someone who actually likes to hear why I'm wrong from someone who claims I'm wrong?

Asking where an allegory is doesn't happen to be arrogant. I was curious where you found an allegory in all of that immorality.

Pretending to know what youre talkng about is arrogant.


Why yes, I'm saying you're being quite arrogant yourself. I've spent quite a bit of time learning about Hebrew scripture, though I never claimed to be all knowing. I do however know with quite a bit of certainty that I can demonstrate a great portion of the laws commanded by the deity Yahweh in those scriptures to be immoral and often insane.

Or can you tell me how cutting off all of the fine touch nerve receptors on an nonconsenting infant's penis is moral?

not acknowledging your inherent fallibility, is arrogant.

Where did I say I'm infallible? And why aren't you addressing my question?

I never said i understand the Kabbalah totally. But i read Hebrew, i have a hundred + books on the subject and even than i know my limits.

Ok, so do I....but why aren't you addressing my question? I asked you where the allegory is in the laws that command slavery, punish rape victims, demand the cutting off of functional genital tissue, etc is.

You seem to imagine yourself an authority in whatever topic you come across.

So you're just going to continue with an ad hominem attack rather than actually addressing my question?
And no, I don't consider myself an authority on every topic...or most topics...really not on any topic. Though I do know quite a bit about quite a lot of subjects.

If you noticed I specifically asked you questions. Questions mean that I'm open to answers. If the answers are any good I might even change my mind.

Even here, a subject you obviously know very little about.

Yes, I know very little about how it's wrong for a deity to command the mass rape of all female virgins in a conquered town.

Evidence, you've not provided any for any of your statements.

I said read the ARI, or Moshe Cordevero, or some of the Chassidic greats.

And I asked for evidence, not a reading list.

Much of it is hinted at in their writings.

Hinted at? So they don't even make it explicit themselves?

and it is much too complex to get into with a person who simple desires to crticize, rather than understand and embrace.

Hey, yet another ad hominem attack. You're really aiming for the logical fallacy high score, aren't you?

I am not here to criticize, I'm here to discuss. If I see something that looks fishy I'll openly point it out. If someone points out to me that I'm wrong, I'd like to see why they think so because I like to learn from my mistakes.

Anyone who understands quantum physics knows that you cannot transform the physical through mental means.

Ok..... I reckon you have never in your life read an occult book; and if you had, never experimented with its teachings.

I'm talking about science. Not any 'occult book'. And science has yet to confirm people altering the physical through mental means. Hell, there's a million dollar prize for anyone who can demonstrate this sort of ability.

This is quite real. I really am amuzed by your ignorance, and or, put on.

And yet it's never been verified. It's not real at all. Were people able to alter the physical mentally there would be evidence.

Even CG Jungs theory of the unconscious posits a psychic substance - called an archetype - that is able not only to influence consciousness, but physical matter as well (read wolfgang paulie and his colloborative 'the interpretation of nature and psyche")...

Yes, a pioneering psychologist posited something that has never been proven to exist. I think the best application of archetypes has been to understanding our evolutionary psychology through mythology. The 'psychic substance' has yet to be uncovered. It was just an unsupported hypothesis.

Its these archetypal forces which enable man to manipulate physical reality. In the case of a man able to transform something in thought - a visual, into something else. That requires a very high degree of spirituality which can only usually be achieved through asceticism.

Except...no. Unless you have some evidence you'd like to show of this, I'll just dismiss it. In the words of Hitchens, that which is proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

edit on 21-1-2011 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

Hey, it's like the rest of your post. No reason.

reply to post by Methuselah

I'd like to point out "Your Honor"

What has my honour got to do with the Big Bang?

just because it is agreed upon by the majority if this thread that I am wrong, does not make that notion an undeniable fact.

Of course it doesn't. You're not wrong because a majority of forum members think you are (I'm not at all sure that's true, anyway). You're wrong because... you're wrong. Ask any biologist, or any other person who has thoroughly understood the theory of evolution, and they will all admit (even though a few will wriggle and writhe a bit before they do) that the origin of life is unknown to science. It's not a complete mystery, but we don't have any really solid evidence that will allow us to theorize about how life came to exist.

The theory of evolution cannot explain it. It doesn't even try. It's not designed to.

explain why Abiogenesis is not included in the EVOLUTION of the universe

First, because the theory of evolution by natural selection does not pretend to explain the evolution of the universe, only the evolution of life on this planet.

Second, because the concept of abiogenesis (a simple 'a' is okay) is only connected with the evolution of life, not with the evolution of the universe.

You can accept the theory of evolution and still believe in God. Outside the United States of America, that's what most educated people do. You can believe that life was commanded into existence by God, He having already decreed the great Law of evolution by natural selection that it would thenceforth be obliged to follow; or you can believe that the Maker of All actually directs (or commands) the process of variation and selection step by step, making every selective outcome, every speciation, a product of Divine Will. There are plenty of other ways to reconcile God and evolution, as the Roman Catholic church and many Protestant denominations have managed to do.

But what you cannot reconcile with the theory of evolution is an 8,000-year-old universe modelled on the Book of Genesis, any more than you can reconcile that Biblical universe with modern astronomy, physics, cosmology or the rest of the science of biology. It isn't the theory of evolution specifically that is incompatible with that version of God; it is science itself.

your little statement attempting to make me sound like an idiot, im sorry but you have some explaining to do since i did go through and read this entire thread and found that the evolutionist (or its defenders) just bounce around with semi-related references that really dont explain anything other that a solid principle and a prediction with no supporting evidence for the hypothesis stated.

I'm sorry if you thought I made you sound like an idiot. There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding. I was suggesting you read the threads for the information they contained about this issue, not because a majority of posters were of the same opinion as I. My apologies for not making myself clearer.

If the above explanation of why evolution theory doesn't include abiogenesis is not satisfactory, let me know and I will do my best to make up the deficit.

Originally posted by dontreally

• Adam means "i am blood" or "i have blood". Dam in Hebrew, blood, implies life. Thus, Adam is a man, or state that recoginizes its own life or existence; ie; self consciousness.
  
  

I'm certainly no Hebrew scholar, but Adam doesn't mean "I am blood". While dam is the word for red blood on it's own, it has the same root of many a word that doesn't mean "blood" . . . In fact, it is the "red" connection that gives it its "blood" meaning. Edom means the color red and is the actual root of Adam, not simply dam. Adamah is the femine form and means "ground" (or red ground"). Adam then means red man. Also in Genesis 2:7, it states "the adam was formed out of the adamah" or the red man was formed from the red ground.

It's my understanding in the ancient Hebrew world, a person’s name was not simply an identifier but descriptive of one's character. As Adam was formed out of the ground, his name identifies his origins. Also why the character in the NT that brings about man's salvation is named Yeshua . . . as it literally mean's "god's salvation" or just "salvation". Meanwhile the standard or pre-exile form of Joshua (Yehoshua) means "Yahweh is salvation" or "Our Lord is salvation".

Modifications to the root mean changes in the context or meaning of the word, but don't change the root . . . which in the case of "Adam" is red, not blood.

Is this not so . . . ?

reply to post by solomons path

The root Adam can be related to many worrds and the root itself has a simple intrinsic meaning. For instance, Dalet -mem, also is the biliteral root of Domeh - likeness, as in Adam was made in G-ds likeness. Dalet - mem, means blood, and the Aleph article is the first person meaning "I". So while it is not completely grammatically correct, Adam can be understood as "I am blood" and this is completely in line with traditional kabbalstic reasoning.

reply to post by dontreally


We have no proof Adam ever existed, so no matter the meaning of the name, it doesn't add anything to the "god was behind the big bang" statement

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Hinted at? So they don't even make it explicit themselves?

No. In some cases they give straight explanations, in others not so much.

If you dont like hints you would hate Rabbinic writings. You cannot reading Mishna, Talmud, Midrashim, Onkelos, Rashi, Rambam, Ramban (these are acornyms for their names) without being confronted over and over again with similes and allegorical language that conceals a metaphysical or logical idea.

This is why a non Jew who studies Judaism without a competent Jewish teacher knows not a thing what he is learning about. Jews are very tight lipped with their own tradition. Explains why YOU, being a non Jew, know nothing about the bible.

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Hinted at? So they don't even make it explicit themselves?

No. In some cases they give straight explanations, in others not so much.

So...they're openly deceptive?

If you dont like hints you would hate Rabbinic writings.

I don't mind hints, I just mind people presenting a crapload of hints as a coherent narrative of some sort.

You cannot reading Mishna, Talmud, Midrashim, Onkelos, Rashi, Rambam, Ramban (these are acornyms for their names) without being confronted over and over again with similes and allegorical language that conceals a metaphysical or logical idea.

Please provide me with an actual piece of allegory that's purely linguistic in the instances of the atrocities of the Hebrew scriptures. Where is the allegory in the vilification of the female reproductive cycle? Where is the allegory in the genital mutilation of non-consenting children? Where is the allegory in genocide? Where's the allegory in stoning to death a raped slave?

This is why a non Jew who studies Judaism without a competent Jewish teacher knows not a thing what he is learning about.

Which is why I went to a Rabbi.

Jews are very tight lipped with their own tradition.

Really? The ones I know, the Rabbi in particular, are actually quite fond of sharing their traditions. The one I knew was of Spanish descent and told me quite a lot of their histories. Unfortunately, he battled some medical issues and died recently. I'd refer you to him if he were still with us.

Explains why YOU, being a non Jew, know nothing about the bible.

You've yet to demonstrate that I know nothing about the Bible. You've merely stated it repeatedly without explaining how I'm demonstrating no knowledge of the Bible.

I know that there are probably 4 sources of the Hebrew scriptures (not 4 individuals, 4 traditions). The Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomist traditions (as well as the Torah redactors). I know enough about semitic language to pick up the linguistic points quite quickly. I know that the Hebrew scriptures started out as a polytheistic tradition. I've actually read the damn things several times over, once alongside a Hebrew concordance.

Please, back up this claim that I know nothing about the Bible.

reply to post by dontreally


Sooooooo...you're basically saying that, with absolutely not reasoning, we can add grammatical connotations to come up with whatever allegory we want? The grammar isn't there, the allegory is added. Now, we can find allegory in Hebrew scriptures, I never denied it, but there are quite a number of points where there exists no allegory.

I believe that one of the reasons that the big bang has endured - despite numerous flaws, (at the detriment to all new scientific theories) is because it allows religion to retain "the creation" .....something out of nothing

I have put together some information - pointing out the major flaws in the big bang theory, and some reasons why it may have done so well

Let me know what you think !

LINK

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

a coherent narrative of some sort.

Its not meant to be coherent for everyone; only the initiated.

lease provide me with an actual piece of allegory that's purely linguistic in the instances of the atrocities of the Hebrew scriptures. Where is the allegory in the vilification of the female reproductive cycle? Where is the allegory in the genital mutilation of non-consenting children? Where is the allegory in genocide? Where's the allegory in stoning to death a raped slave?

Just to make clear. Allegory is meant in these instances as metaphor, as opposed to whats usually thought of as allegory (for instance, alice in wonderland). Each of these symbols, and motifs, are physical manifestation of metaphysical principles.

This site talks a bit about the 4 types of capital punishment and what they mean, kabbalistically.

The Torah has ordained four different methods of executions for capital sins. Each of these four manners of death penalty incurred by us because of our sins corresponds to the four supernal worlds of Atzilut, Beriah, Yetzirah, and Asiyah.
1. Atzilut is the realm that emanates the sphere of the spiritual.
2. Beriah emanates the sphere of the intellect.
3. Yetzirah emanates the sphere of the heart.
4. Asiyah emanates the sphere of the physical.

Thus, every aspect of a person’s soul and being emanates from a combination of
sources within all four of these worlds.
Each sin performed by a person blemishes a certain place in the supernal
worlds. Some sins are more severe than others are, yet all sins cause blemishes
somewhere. These spiritual blemishes are what hinder the Redemption and the
coming of Mashiah. Only with their rectification can the path be clear and
Redemption come. Rectifying our sins thus becomes our paramount task in
order to bring about the Redemption.
The four methods of capital punishment by Torah are stoning, burning,
decapitation, and strangulation.
1. S’kilah/Stoning is the punishment for those who blemish Atzilut (the
source of the spiritual).
2. S’rifah/Burning is the punishment for those who blemish Beriah (the
source of the intellect).
3. Hereg/Decapitation is the punishment for those who blemish Yetzirah (the
source of the heart).
4. Henek/Strangulation is the blemish for those who blemish Asiyah (the
source of the physical).

www.koshertorah.com...

Which is why I went to a Rabbi.

I mean an orthodox rabbi.

Really? The ones I know, the Rabbi in particular, are actually quite fond of sharing their traditions.

Do you think i make this stuff up or something? Im a non Jew. Some aspects of Judaism and its inner tradition are not shared with those who are not "apart of the covenant". While i am close with very many rabbis and have studied with them in Rashi and other Torah subjects, very few non Jews - and only those who show themselves to be true bnei Noach - are permitted to be taught in the deeper layers of Tanakh and Kabbalah.

Sooooooo...you're basically saying that, with absolutely not reasoning, we can add grammatical connotations to come up with whatever allegory we want? The grammar isn't there, the allegory is added. Now, we can find allegory in Hebrew scriptures, I never denied it, but there are quite a number of points where there exists no allegory.

This is why i say you know nothing of the bible. Interpolation is apart of biblical exegesis. There are innumerable anomolous examples in The Torah, Neviyim, and Ketuvim(pslams especially) where interpolation is required to complete context. Where the grammatical format is uncanny, but nonethless used.

Dam means blood and the article Aleph, before a word can render it first person. Thus "A-DaM" can be translated and indeed IS translated by kabbalists as "I [am] blood".

Ancient texts aren't proof of the existence of god because they're not backed up by evidence.

What all those believers are doing is illogical. If I wrote a blog, saying pink unicorns created the universe, and in 4000 years someone read that, by no means should he accept that as fact...yet millions of people chose to base their entire lives on pseudo-science and SPECULATION rather than admitting we don't have all the answers. Or even worse, they blatantly ignore scientific findings simply because they go against doctrine.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Ancient texts aren't proof of the existence of god because they're not backed up by evidence.

What all those believers are doing is illogical. If I wrote a blog, saying pink unicorns created the universe, and in 4000 years someone read that, by no means should he accept that as fact...yet millions of people chose to base their entire lives on pseudo-science and SPECULATION rather than admitting we don't have all the answers. Or even worse, they blatantly ignore scientific findings simply because they go against doctrine.

Of course no-one would be silly enough to believe your book on pink unicorns.

- You forgot to make it clear that your book was inspired by pink unicorns, and is, effectively, their word.
- You forgot that the way the book should prove the existance of pink unicorns is to show these unicorns ordered the deaths of hundreds of communities, and killed people who didn't carry out these orders.
- You forgot to inform people of the terrible hell they will endure for eternity if they don't believe in pink unicorns.
- You didn't even include any vague prophetic hogwash, or confused retellings of mostly make-believe history.

By the way, tell the people you address they are specially chosen, and are superior to everyone else, and promise them a wonderful reward if they believe. That really helps.


And, (shhhhh) - you must convince them of an after-life, because then you can have them believe they will get their reward then. That saves you the problem of dishing out real rewards.

Alrighty then....

God was behind the big bang eh?
ill guess ill cap on the replies to my posts from last week, not that it would matter much but here goes nothin...
I guess we really need to determine whether or not there was actually a big bang too... cuz according to the articles on the web its just a widely accepted theory and not a fact.

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Methuselah

 

Ohh you "don't have the time" do you. How convenient. I suggest you build up your knowledge of science and the real world before you try to troll any more arguments

how about you include the rest of my quote in there and stop misquoting and ripping my statements out of context... thanks
I really dont like wasting time doing exactly what i explained in the statement you misquoted.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Methuselah
I really dont have the time to research all of your replies

Yeah, wouldn't want that fantasy land you have in your head get destroyed by reality, right?

Modern science has so many dating methods nowadays, claiming the earth is only 10,000 years old in the 21st century only shows one thing...the public school system is seriously failing in some countries/areas.

In case you can be bothered, and want to deny ignorance by learning about all the various methods:

LINK

Also, if you believe science is "just making stuff up", you should read up on scientific methods as I don't think you fully grasp how science operates. LINK

edit on 21-1-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

ROFL WOW!
so what you are saying is... if people dont believe in the evolution theory, and/or they dont believe the earth is billions of years old (which btw is the only saving grace for the evolution theory, abiogenesis and the big bang) if they dont believe this stuff, they lack intelligence? you are calling those who dont believe illogical and stupid right? before i comment on that i just want to make sure thats what you are saying.

and i know what scientific means, its what ive been basing my argument off of the entire time.
its very easy for two points of view to come to two very different conclusions based on the same observation.

Everything that supports the big bang theory and the evolution of the universe and the solar system is all based on concepts and ideas that are widely accepted and are even admitted to be just theories and no facts.
so im pointing out right here that we dont KNOW for a FACT anything that you have stated earlier in this post about this big bang, formations, ages etc...

reply to post by Astyanax


Im wrong because im wrong? not very logical or backed up by anything solid.

well i really dont see how you can go from Big Bang straight into Theory of Evolution and just assume abiogenesis takes care of itself. that what evolution tells us, that it must have happened, since evolution can jump "do all of this neat stuff" abiogenesis must have occurred or must be possible.

and the bible is perfectly compatible with science. just because you dont think the universe is as young as we say it is does not mean that its not. the bible (not just genesis) and evolution DO NOT mix at all. mixing the two conflicts with many scriptures making it an incompatible theory.
as for science - unbiased science, its perfectly compatible with Genesis. just because you cant use science to explain the supernatural parts does not mean its incompatible with everything else.

reply to post by Kailassa


so basically what you are saying is that we cant really trust any sort of historical documentation of any sort since they cant prove any of it through that documentation?
example: you cant prove that George Washington actually existed, and neither can those documents that say he did exist.
Also, if you think about it, those who wrote the scriptures are either eye witnesses or were instructed/inspired to write.

After eating Mexican, the Big Bang was behind God right?