The Devil made me do it!

One of the things I despised as a fundamentalist Christian was how some of my fellow believers and evangelists blamed everything on the devil. My partner in the ministry was one of those types of believers. He blamed the devil for everything from epilepsy to homosexuality, to natural urges such as lust and even "normal" sexual desires. He viewed women that dressed "too provocatively" as immoral instruments of Satan to draw men away from God through distracting them through sexual lusts and desires.

Since God hates women I thank the devil for women like Rosario Dawson! 

Sick people today love to use either God or the Devil as scapegoats for the crimes they commit against their own children, husbands, wives, family members, or society. They claim to hear voices in their heads telling them to kill such and such. This is not the result of demons or devils or God for that matter. It is more than likely that the person suffers from multiple personality disorders, schizophrenia, psychotic breaks and delusions. 

New York's infamous David Berkowitz aka the Son of Sam.

David Berkowitz was a serial killer who began his spree in the summer of 1976 and which lasted a little over a year. He was also known as the 44 caliber killer because his crimes consisted of shooting people with a 44 calibre pistol. He claimed that he received his orders from a demon that had possessed his neighbors dog! Fortunately after he was captured and sentenced he was given six consecutive life sentences, so luckily for us we wont be seeing him in the local supermarket anytime soon. 

Today I was watching a Spanish television realityy court show where two people were seeking a divorce after 27 years of marriage because they found out that both their adult kids were gay! Mom could not take it because she was religious and dad could not take it because he was an ignorant discriminating asshole who is still stuck in the bronze ages. As experts there was presented a reverend, a psychiatrist, and a medical doctor. The kids agreed to undergo an exorcism in the court room and not suprisingly it was an utter failure. The judge reamed out the reverend and set the parents straight on their need to love their kids for who they are. 

When I was in the church preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ I too was opposed to homosexuality. But my position on the matter was that gays were still children of God and that you could not get through to them if it wasn't with genuine love and understanding. My younger sister is gay, and she first came out to me. She asked my opinion about God's view on gays and I gave it to her based on my beliefs in a non-offensive or critical manner. But I found a couple of Christian groups who are calling gays people who are damned to hell or possessed by demons. But it's okay! God can fix it with a simple exorcism. 

Tell that gay cock sucking demon to go to hell!! LOL

As much as I hate and despise all types of discrimination I found this video quite entertaining. It seems that there are demons out there that give you the urge if you are a guy to suck a dick and desire to have all out gay sex with another man. The same can be said about those evil lesbian inducing spirits of hell that can cause an otherwise "normal" woman to desire to have sex with her female friends. When will Christians get it that these things are not demons they are just human nature. They need to learn to live in their own delusions and leave the rest of the world the hell alone. 

Citing messianic prophecy out of context

As a former Christian believer I had never thought to ponder the questions regarding the prophecies normally cited by believers as references to Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. While writing and searching for material for another post I came across a prophesy cited in the New Testament as being a prophecy of the coming of Christ.

22"All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23“The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”(which means “God with us”).
Matthew 1:22-23

This is a direct citation of a similar prophecy found in the Old Testament.

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14

For the purpose of this post I want to focus on the meaning of the original prophecy found in the book of Isaiah. By putting it in its proper context I will demonstrate that the author of Matthew, whoever he was cited this quote out of context. and finally to demonstrate that it was indeed not meant to be taken as a prophecy about the birth of Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately for Christians this prophecy has nothing to do with Christ!

 In order to fully comprehend the true meaning of this prophecy you must read Isaiah chapter seven in its entirety. But here for brevity's sake I will break it down and simplify it for you since the language used is a little hard to follow and at times confusing.

At the time that this prophecy was given, Ahaz king of Judah was under the threat of attack by Aram and Ephraim. Their ultimate goal was to overthrow the king of Judah and take his kingdom and divide it amongst themselves. The author relates that Ahaz was afraid of this very dangerous and imminent threat.

"Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with Ephraim; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind." Isaiah 7: 2

In response to this threat the Lord sends his prophet Isaiah and his son to meet with Ahaz with a word from the Lord. God wanted to reassure Ahaz that he would lay both Aram and Ephraim to waste and that their plans would not come to fruition; hence the reference: " Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood"

After receiving the prophecy from Isaiah King Ahaz was told to ask for a sign from the Lord to which he refused because he did not want to test the Lord.

12But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.” Isaiah 7:12

But Isaiah gave him a prophecy relating to a sign anyway. Which is the main subject of this post the prophecy about a virgin giving birth and naming him Immanuel which as the text suggest means God with us. Not as in the incarnation of God as in Christ dwelling and walking the earth with us sinful humans as Christians believe. But rather God with us in the sense that he is on their side and they are in his good graces. The child itself is not significant in any other way, the text does not hint of a miraculous birth. In fact, the way the word virgin in this text should be translated is "young woman" not virgin as in a woman who has never known a man who has her hymen intact while giving birth.

Because of his disobedience of God through Isaiah Ahaz incurs some consequences, but the Lord still will fulfill his promise to deliver them from Aram and Ephraim. The consequences have to do with the Assyrians but at this time they are not relevant to this post so I wont get into them.

16"for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

Notice the specificity of the above mentioned prophecy. This was for Ahaz and his people during their time. There is no hint whatsoever in this entire chapter that states that a messiah will come to deliver his people. This is simply just another one of Christianity's inventions borrowed from the Old Testament to bolster their new belief systems acceptability and credibility by tying it to the older traditions of the Jews.  

Note: All biblical citations are from the New International Version

The perpetual virginity of Mary

In this post I would like to discuss the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. In other words the idea that Mary after having given birth to her first son Jesus by the miraculous conception of the Holy Spirit, remained a virgin for the rest of her life. I find that the New Testament answers this question quite thoroughly without the need for apologetics or mental gymnastics to try and interpret the relevant texts to say things we wish were true.

The blessed virgin Mary

There was a huge debate amongst biblical scholars and apologists regarding the meaning of the word virgin as used in the Old Testament (hā·‘al·māh) and its equivalent Greek word (parthenos) used in the New Testament. The debate was centered around whether the word virgin meant the same back then in the time it was used in the texts as it did to us now. The Hebrew version of the word could be used to refer to a young maiden and not necessarily a virgin in our modern day traditional sense, and it can mean virgin. Either way I will overlook this part of the discussion and give them the benefit of the doubt that virgin as used in the New Testament texts in reference to Mary meant a woman who had not had sexual intercourse with a man. 

Catholics insist that Mary never had sex with Joseph and did not have any more children after the birth of Jesus. So I will like to start this discussion by dispelling the first myth. That is, if we are to take the N.T. literally regarding this matter without alluding to parables, allegories, etc. The most telling verse in the gospels that gives one the impression that Mary did in fact consummate her marriage with Joseph after birthing Jesus is found in the book of Matthew. 

But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Matthew 1:25

The context of this verse states that Joseph was betrothed to Mary so they were already arranged to be married. But when he found out that she was pregnant and he had not yet had intercourse with her he was thinking of quietly cancelling the wedding. The angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and explained the situation. He then realized that the child would be sent from God and went on and married her as the Lord had commanded him. 

The text I have cited says that he did not consummate the marriage and ends the sentence with until she gave birth indicating that he did in fact consummate the marriage later on. The word until as used in this sentence basically can be interpreted as Joseph not having sex with Mary till she gave birth giving me the impression that he did so afterwards.

There are other verses that support my conclusion quite clearly in the gospel of Matthew where it states that Jesus took a trip to his home town and was preaching to the people and they were amazed at his knowledge. 

55“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”  Mathew 13:55-56 

According to the author of Matthew who most likely wasn't Matthew at all; not only were the people impressed by Jesus display of knowledge, but also by the fact that they had apparently known him and his family before he left to start his ministry. This was of course before he was baptized by John and set out to fulfill his calling. In the text they mention that he has four brothers and an unknown number of sisters. Mark is believed to have been the first gospel written and it is thought that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark. As a result of this it is no surprise to find a similar passage in Mark.

3"Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him." Mark 6:3

Finally, the apostle Paul makes a reference to James the brother of Jesus in Galatians 1:19 "I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother." and Matthew 12:46 "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him." All these texts serve as evidence to Jesus having had biological siblings. So as you have seen the bible itself attest to the fact that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus.

After Jesus she got freaky with it!

My position on the matter is that Jesus never existed and so the whole story of a virgin birth is just as false and fictional as most of the stories in the scriptures. But those are future posts best left for another time when I can present my position thoroughly and in greater detail.

The ten commandments

I've read many articles online about the ten commandments; and so I thought that it was time for me to add one more to the mix. In this post I intend to point out some of the flaws in the ten commandments themselves, and most importantly some of the flaws that I can see in the biblical deity's character.

The ten commandments

Unless you are familiar with the scriptures not many people know that the ten commandments are actually narrated twice in the scriptures. You can find them in Exodus chapter 20:3-17 and Deuteronomy chapter5:7-21. For the purpose of this post and to avoid confusion I will stick to using only the version outlined in Exodus. 

commandment:

1. divine proscription: a command from God, especially one of the Ten Commandments Synonyms: directive, order, commandment, demand, charge, instruction, mandate, decree

I would like to start off by first defining the word commandment. As you can see from the definition above and its related words a commandment is an order or decree. I have often accused the biblical deity of being a dictator and a tyrant. The ten commandments clearly demonstrate that this assessment is correct. God likes power and he loves to be in charge, yet theists continue to claim that this same god has given us all the gift of free will. In all truth, the only free will you have is the will to voluntarily submit your life and will over to the power and authority of God. That's not free will, that's coercion; since the other option leads to the threat of eternal torment for not choosing to bow down to your master and creator!

The biblical deity obviously suffers from megalomania. Which is defined as:

1. greed for power: an excessive enjoyment in having power over other people and a craving for more of it
2. psychiatric disorder with delusions of power: a psychiatric disorder in which the patient experiences delusions of great power and importance

This is made most clear by the first four commandments which have absolutely nothing to do with morality. That is unless you define morality as the obligatory worship of the god of your choice.

1. “You shall have no other gods before me."
2. “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."
3. “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
4. “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy."

The first commandment demonstrates the utter intolerance of Judaism. Christians also share the same intolerance and claim of absolute truth from this commandment. The second is a prohibition against making images and if you read further of worshiping those images. Once again it is all about Yahweh. In the third commandment you are warned that even his name holds power and misusing his name can also have dire consequences. Finally, the fourth just reminds you that he rested on the seventh day from his labor of creation and so you too must take the seventh day as a day of rest. Why would an omnipotent deity need any rest at all is beyond me. Maybe he is not omnipotent after all. Based on this initial assessment, I move to refer to the ten commandments as the six commandments since the first four shouldn't even count.

Now let's take a look at the last six commandments and see what we can make of them.

5. “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you."
6. “You shall not murder."
7. “You shall not commit adultery."
8. “You shall not steal."
9. “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."
10. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

These last six commandments are a little bit more pragmatic and to an extent more useful to a community or society as a whole. But they are also quite ambiguous in that they don't take into account specific situations that may require interpretation of those laws. The fifth commandment states that you should honor your mother and father. But what if mom and dad are physically abusive and substance abusers as well? Do we still honor them for the years of abuse and torment that we were subjected to because of their life styles? Let's not forget about the effects of sexual abuse as well.

 
I am aware that in the book of Leviticus and even some of Exodus we are given some instances where the law is interpreted to specific situations. But some of the punishments in my view don't fit the crimes and are often too extreme. For instance death for worshiping other gods or practicing witchcraft or fortune telling. The sixth commandment says that we should not commit murder. But as anyone knows there are various forms of murder. There is that which is committed maliciously and with intent and then there are those incidents where self preservation requires you to kill another human being and then there is murder in defense of another. Of course other situations and reasons could apply as well. But while God commanded against murder, he led the Israelites on a campaign of war and wanton murder in order for them to possess the lands he so called gave them and clear it of its present inhabitants. So murder in the commandments was subjective to the whim of God.

The seventh commandment states that you shall not commit adultery (have relations with a married woman or man) yet at the same time we read in the Old Testament that it was okay to have concubines alongside multiple wives. So polygamy and concubines (mistress) were okay but somehow to me that seems self contradictory.  The eighth commandment seems more practical than its predecessors. I don't condone stealing and feel that it is a good commandment but what if you are homeless with children in a culture that does not have welfare or other government aids for those who are down and out? Aside from begging stealing may be necessary for your own survival and that of your children. Some countries actually prohibit begging in the streets so stealing ends up being your only alternative. Also, the Israelites stole everything they had under God's command so once again it wasn't bad because God gave them the land and was leading the troops.

The ninth commandment seems more applicable to all situations. It's not cool to lie about your friends or neighbors or anyone for that matter. The Salem witch hunts are a perfect example of the consequences a lie could bring someone. So far I think that this is the one and only commandment I fully agree with. Finally, coveting your neighbors goods, property, and his wife is definitely not cool. But if your neighbor is prosperous and you desire his wealth it can also have a positive effect on you and motivate you to work to get where he is at. So in some instances coveting may not be so bad after all. It's bad to maliciously covet someones things which eventually leads you to steal or even murder someone for their possessions.

Even though I do not agree with all of the sayings attributed to Jesus I think that one in particular saying blows the ten commandments out of orbit.

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12 This seem to me to be self explanatory so I will leave you to ponder its significance.

Note: All word definitions are taken from the Bing online dictionary and all biblical citations are from the New International Version. 

The difference between fear and respect

In this post I would like to take a closer look at the element of fear as a component of faith. I know that many have done so already, but I think that it's high time that I throw in my little spin on this charade that many wish to call God's commandment out of love for mankind.

I've had this argument with theists for years about what the bible means when it says that we should fear the Lord. They claim that it does not mean fear as in coerce through terror, but rather fear as in respect. I am here to state emphatically that this latter idea is false and incorrect. First of all respect and fear are two very different words with opposite meanings.

respect:

1. esteem: a feeling or attitude of admiration and deference toward somebody or something
2. state of being admired: the state of being admired deferentially
3. thoughtfulness: consideration or thoughtfulness

fear:

1. feeling of anxiety: an unpleasant feeling of anxiety or apprehension caused by the presence or anticipation of danger
2. frightening thought: an idea, thought, or other entity that causes feelings of fear
3. reverence: respect or awe for somebody or something

As you can see in the first definition respect is mostly a positive emotion. We often say that respect is not simply given it has to be earned. Respect for a persons achievements in a company for instance can inspire his co-workers to want to achieve greater success within the company. He is admired because he has worked hard to get to where he is. On the other hand, if you are a mob boss in the mafia chances are that what you receive from your subordinates is not respect but fear. They respect you because they fear you and what you can do to them. This is not true respect this is fear plain and simple.

 In Proverbs 9:10 and many other places in the scriptures it is emphasized that fear of the Lord is the most important thing a servant of God must possess. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." The biblical deity does not simply ask for respect he demands it! Yet in my view his acts and numerous crimes against humanity as narrated in the Old Testament are only deserving of my disgust and disdain for such a deity. I've often stated that if a man were to do half of what God had done to mankind he would be considered a monster devoid of morality. Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and others have proven my point quite nicely.

 Human monsters

At the end of the ten commandments in Exodus 20:18,20 Moses informs the Israelites about the reasons why they should fear the Lord after the people were terrified out of their minds from hearing God's voice from the mountain and seeing lightning above them. 18"When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 20Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”

As you can see this so called fear of the Lord is best described by the first definition given above. According to the scriptures the sign that you love God is that you obey his commandments. But in reality you don't obey them because they are right and true. You obey them because you fear what in the case of Christians might befall you after death if you die outside of God's graces. The entire religious enterprise is built upon the principles of fear. The Old Testament has God interacting with his people in miraculous and often scary ways, while the New Testament has the looming threat of an eternal hell fire hanging over the heads of believers. 

                                                     
In reality, which happens to be the world we currently live in you have to give respect to get it. If you treat people as if they are inferior, useless, or discriminate against them for a number of illogical reasons then they wont respect you. If you force them to respect you through intimidation and fear then what you have is fear and not respect. As I stated earlier respect has to be earned; it is not something you just randomly give away. Based on the bible stories about Yahweh, Elohim, or whatever you want to call him the biblical deity doesn't even qualify in my book for my respect and admiration. I see reflections of the biblical God in Hitler, Stalin, Mao, John Wayne Gacy, Vlad the impaler, and a few other human devils that have walked this earth.

Finally, before I end this post I would like to point out that I do not agree with the third definition of fear above. "reverence: respect or awe for somebody or something" this is not fear this is respect and admiration. I am just saying this since I do have some theists come through that love to nitpick my posts and misconstrue everything I say in them.

Note: All word definitions are from Bing Dictionary online and all biblical citations are from the New International Version.  

The Bible Myth

When referring to the bible I often call it a book of myths. But a close examination of this book shows the careful reader that it is a little bit more than that. An anonymous poster commented on my blog that the "legend of Samson is true." In my reply I realized that he used the word "legend" and decided to look up its dictionary definition.

Legend:

1. old story: a story that has been passed down for generations, especially one that is presented as history but is unlikely to be true
2. old stories: a group of stories presented as history but unlikely to be true

Myth:
     1.ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain
        the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior

Based on the two definitions I have provided above the Bible can be called both a book of legends and myths. As a legend it is thought by many to be accurate and historically true, although anyone who tries to verify it find themselves unable to do so. I have had people try to tell me that because archeologists have verified the existence of the city of Jericho that that verifies the truth of the scriptures. But all that really verifies in this case is that there was a city of Jericho dating back to the times in which the story was written.

Creative fiction authors often use actual places and people in their stories. They basically are weaving their tales into a historical backdrop. I think that this same technique has been used by the authors of the bible as well. They have woven fictional tales into history and many people today have been led to believe that those stories were absolutely true when in fact they are nothing more than old legends. The bible is full of tales that have been handed down from generation to generation as historical fact

 Historical events of the past

History:

1. what has happened: the past events of a period in time or in the life or development of a people, an institution, or a place
2. study of past events: the branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events
3. record of events: a chronological account of past events of a period or in the life or development of a people, an institution, or a place

We all know that history in the case of conflicts is usually written by the victor of said conflicts, and in some cases it is not totally reliable. But a lot of things in history such as rulers and places etc. can be confirmed. Since the bible is a book of myths full of fantastical tales and lot's of what theists refer to as "miracles" it is easy to see that it is not a historical book in the traditional sense.

Many things in the bible such as the resurrection, the existence of Christ, Noah's ark,etc. cannot be confirmed utilizing the conventional methods of history. I have read many books on the historicity of Christ and have found that outside of the gospels the evidence for Christ is sketchy and scarce. There is actually no evidence of the existence of Christ available when he supposedly lived outside of the scriptures.

Miracles in the bible cannot be confirmed mainly because they supposedly occurred in the past and because they only happened on one occasion. Finally, the bible has been proven on numerous occasions to be scientifically and historically unreliable.

  
Actual history writers of the period did not bother writing about the amazing events narrated in the bible and I think that this fact alone serves as evidence that the entire book is a book based on legends and myths of a particular culture and race of people. It is my opinion that the bible should be filed in libraries and book stores all over the world in the section labeled myth. It is time that people outgrow these insane and utterly irrational beliefs.

Note: All word definitions are taken from the online Bing dictionary.

Where did God come from?

genesis (n.)

Old English Genesis, first book of the Pentateuch, from Latin genesis, adopted as title of first book of Old Testament in Vulgate, from Greek genesis "origin, creation, generation," from gignesthai "to be born," related to genos "race, birth, descent" (see genus). As such, it translated Hebrew bereshith, literally "in the beginning," which was the first word of the text, taken as its title. Extended sense of "origin, creation" first recorded in English c.1600.

 

In the Old Testament the title of the first book of the Pentateuch (5 books of Moses) is Genesis, as described in the above definition and etymology of this word it basically means origins. The book of Genesis is a book of origins and beginnings. In it we read about the creation of all things from inanimate matter to biological and animate life and its varied forms. But the one thing we don't read about is every atheists question of interest. How or where did the biblical god begin or come into existence? 

 

You see one of the problems theists have with atheists and scientific theories of origins is that they claim that nothing can come from nothing. In other words they believe in the law of causation. Basically, it states that everything that begins to exist must have had a beginning or cause of its existence. Based on this principle they also state that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. It had to start somewhere and that somewhere they like to call in Intelligent Design theory the prime mover or the uncaused cause. Of course there is only one thing in all of existence that does not require a cause for its existence; and that thing is God! 

 

 

The problem with this line of "reasoning" is that if everything that begins to exist requires a cause for its existence then it only leads to the question of what caused God. They try to evade this question by stating simply that God did not begin to exist he just always has! Unfortunately this violates the law of causation and amounts to nothing more than special pleading in favor of their deity of choice. This special pleading of course makes God exempt to the rule that seems to apply to all things that begin to exist. 

 

 The symbol stands for: Doesn't mean

 

The bible actually on several occasions takes this line of reasoning as the answer to the question of the origins of God. But this reply is dependent on one accepting this assertion entirely on faith without concern for any evidence in its favor. Of course there was no one around in "the beginning" to witness it, so we are left with relying on the so called divine revelation claims made by for the most part, anonymous individuals. People whose identity cannot be established and whose credibility cannot be scrutinized outside of his/her writings.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

The bible states clearly that there was a beginning and that the cause of that beginning was God but it says nothing about where God came from. All we get is endless quotes about the biblical deity being the beginning.

"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:8

 

Notice in the text that God is said to exist in three different planes of existence. He is as in existing now (present), was (as having existed in the past/eternally?), and who is to come (future). He is referred to as the beginning and end of all things that exists. But there is no clue in the entire bible of where he came from other than the authors assertion that God always was and does not require a cause since he did not begin to exist. 

 

Christians want to have their cake and eat it too! They condemn scientific theories on origins for believing in a beginning from nothing when in fact that is exactly what they are doing themselves. At least cosmology has certain indirect evidences that support the theory that a big bang did occur, unlike theists who have absolutely no direct or indirect evidence of the existence of God. 

 

 

You can find more information of the big bang theory here. Here are some evidences of the big bang cited from big-bang-theory.com

 

• First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
• Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speed proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law,"named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
• Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Farenheit, -270.425 Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
• Finally, the abundance of "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins. 

Whether the Big Bang is true or not, I consider it to be a much more plausible explanation for how things came to be than "God did it!" What was God doing before the beginning when there was nothing? Was he just floating around in nothingness bored out of his holy mind till he decided to create the earth. Notice that in the text the bible does not mention other planets or galaxies; it only refers to the creation of the earth and even states that the sun and moon and stars were created for the earth to serve as light in the day and night. Genesis 1:15-17

15"and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,"

Note: All biblical citations are taken from the New International Version of scripture.