The Big Bang And Faith

[Lightkeeper]

Can a person believe in the Big Bang theory and still have faith in God? Can a person believe in only parts of the parts of the Bible and still believe in God?

[statrei]

That's a difficult one for me to answer because I am not quite certain now what people mean when they say there was a Big Bang.

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Can a person believe in the Big Bang theory and still have faith in God? Can a person believe in only parts of the parts of the Bible and still believe in God?

I don't see any conflict. Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout." [Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

This is as I've learned it in esoteric Christianity. It really is the same as the Eastern idea of the "Breath of Brahma." The exhalation is devolution into creation and the inhalation is the process of evolution back to the source,

What is confusing for us is that we imagine God as large but it is actually the more corse density of devolving matter that accounts for size. The matter of pure spirit is infinitely small for us. Yet as it devolves into creation it becomes for us infinitely large because of the growing density and decreasing vibrations within matter.

The "big bang" is the closest we can come with our sensory limitations to conceptualize the process of devolution or "creation."

[Ceetee]

my opinion: "yes" to both questions

[RevKathyV]

There is no conflict..it is all in interpretation..the big band can mean many things to different people...

[shaw-n]

The "Big Bang" resulting in creation of "All That Is" sounds suspiciously like a cosmic orgy. In any case, it's sexual connotation is impossible to miss.
Big difference between a big bang and a big breath.

I lean towards the cosmic breath idea of Eastern thought and think that we are living inside of a large breathing entity which is so vast and big that we have no way of gaining a perspective.
Thus we are caught/invovled in lengthy cycles of change.

I don't accept the christian bible (N.T.) and yet believe in God.

[Astreja]

I don't see them as mutually exclusive positions. In particular, a Deist god would not pose much of a problem.

[Eolas Pellor]

Of course, I am not Christian, but I have no trouble reconciling what my beliefs tell me, and what science tells me...because I do not expect either to give a final version of the "Truth", merely interpretive guides.

Think of it this way; visit a great museum, like the Louvre or the Prado, and you can get a audio-recording to help guide you through it. That's a great thing, but it isn't the same as visiting the Louvre or Prado...it is even less than knowing the history of (let's say) Leonardo or El Greco....and it is even less thank being there when Leonardo painted La Gioconda.

Our mythologies -- religious or scientific -- are exactly equivalent to the audio guidebooks. They interpret, point out some interesting things, but leave far more out than they tell.

We would say that anyone who claimed to "know all about" Leonardo based on an audio guidebook seriously deluded. And anyone who claims to "know all about" the origin of the universe is also seriously deluded.

[statrei]

I did not see the sexual connotation of the Big Bang until now. LOL

[angeleyes]

Originally Posted by statrei

I did not see the sexual connotation of the Big Bang until now. LOL

I still don't see the sexual connotation! Hint, please?

I liked your post Eolas. I think the "war" between science and religion is a bit silly, since we can only posit from the limited perspective we have.

I've often wondered if the Big Bang wasn't the "tiny, mad idea" (ACIM) that we could be separate from the Whole.