Orthodox Christians Are Atheists

[Zakuska]

Most cosmologists imagine a big bang in which matter, space, and energy were created from nothing, at least with respect to the universe we can observe. According to this view, it started out as a fluctuation in nothingness that created a region of extremely low entropy (disorder). This region expanded dramatically to create space, while at the same time filling that space with matter and energy. The amount of "positive" matter and energy created in the universe exactly cancelled the amount of "negative" energy which went into the expansion of empty space. That is the best model we have consistent with modern physics, but it still has a lot of problems and unexplained questions.

But just to be clear, this is still not quite the ex nihilo creation of classical Christianity. This physical description of the big bang does not require the will of a God as a prerequisite to the existence of the universe. Also, quantum mechanics probably does not leave open the possibility of the existence of an omniscient God.

It started with something...

BIG BANG

The Big Bang model is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe.[1] The major feature of the Big Bang theory is that the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly (a "Big Bang"). This rapid expansion caused the young universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to recent measurements, scientific evidence, and observations,[2][3] the original state happened around 13.7 billion years ago (see age of the Universe),[4][5] which can be referred to as the time that the Big Bang occurred.[6][7]

Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe; he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's general relativity and on simplifying assumptions (such as homogeneity and isotropy of space). The governing equations had been formulated by Alexander Friedmann. In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts—an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

And looky there... E=Mc2 even effects that so now the Ex Nihilo creationsists have to go back to the drawing board as well!!!

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Then they are not atheists because atheists do not worship.

Oh Athiests do worship. Alright. Just like Scientitsts worship at the altars of science and get really mad when the unwasshed masses try and steady their sacred cows. (E=Mc2)

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

Oh Athiests do worship. Alright. Just like Scientitsts worship at the altars of science and get really mad when the unwasshed masses try and steady their sacred cows. (E=Mc2)

Zak, you know what I mean. Please don't use word games with me when I'm not in the mood to play.

[wenglund]

No it doesn't. Here are some definitions of "commonly" I found on the Internet:

Usually, as a rule, routinely, frequently, generally, more often than not, ordinarily, regularly, for the most part, Widespread, prevalent.

"Mormons commonly" means, "Mormons ... [substitute any of the above]".

Those definitions are valid, but so is Rob's (he evidently isn't referring to Mormons collectively, but individually). Let's allow him to tell us what he means, and hopefully he will do the same in return.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

Ahab,

"Mormons commonly" means "it is common for (some) Mormons"; it does not mean "every Mormon does this on a regular basis."

Thank you for saying (some) instead of leaving it open to a possibility that you were referring to (all). It does make a difference.

I'm sure there are some critics of the LDS religion who make serious mistakes you can criticize. I've made some serious mistakes from time to time myself. But this is not one of them. You're just straining at a gnat here.

The "gnat" I'm talking about here is making sweeping generalized statements as if they apply to everybody, or everybody in a certain group, instead of making it clear that you're only talking about (some) people.

If you had simply said (some) Mormons accuse (some) non-"Mormon" Christians of being atheists I would have agreed with you, but that wouldn't mean that I agree with the idea that (all) "Mormons" refer to (all) Christians who are not "Mormons" atheists, and I would hope you would understand that without any need for this stupid thread.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Just in case someone hasn't mentioned this yet....

Where is it stated that God as defined by the Trinity (Nicene Creed) has no substance?

In fact, is it not stated that the Father, Son and Spirit share one "substance"?

Hmm. I thought it was in there, somewhere, but at any rate hasn't Rob said he believes God doesn't have any?

I know there is something in at least one of the non-"Mormon" creeds that states God has no body, parts, or passions. I'll have to double check to make sure one of them says something about God having no substance, or form.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Ahab

[Zakuska]

Hmm. I thought it was in there, somewhere, but at any rate hasn't Rob said he believes God doesn't have any?

I know there is something in at least one of the non-"Mormon" creeds that states God has no body, parts, or passions. I'll have to double check to make sure one of them says something about God having no substance, or form.

The Nicean Creed

Homoousian (Greek: ὁμοούσιος, from the Greek: ὁμός, homós, "same" and οὐσία, ousía, "essence, being") is a technical theological term used in discussion of the Christian understanding of God as Trinity. The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as being homooúsios with God the Father — that is, they are of the "same substance" and are equally God. This term, adopted by the First Council of Nicaea, was intended to add clarity to the relationship between Christ and God the Father within the Godhead.

Pre-Nicene use of the term

The term ὁμοούσιος had been used before its adoption by the Nicene theology. The Gnostics were the first theologians to use the word "homoousios", while before the Gnostics there is no trace at all of its existence.[1] The early church theologians were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, by the Gnostics.[2] In Gnostic texts the word "homoousios" is used with these meanings: (1) identity of substance between generating and generated; (2) identity of substance between things generated of the same substance; (3) identity of substance between the partners of a syzygy. For example, Basilides, the first known Gnostic thinker to use "homoousios" in the first half of the 2nd century, speaks of a threefold sonship consubstantial with the god who is not.[3] The Valentinian Gnostic Ptolemy claims in his letter to Flora that it is the nature of the good God to beget and bring forth only beings similar to, and consubstantial with himself.[4] "Homoousios" was already in current use by the 2nd-century Gnostics, and through their works it became known to the orthodox heresiologists, though this Gnostic use of the term had no reference to the specific relationship between Father and Son, as is the case in the Nicene Creed.

Adoption of the term in the Nicene Creed

The Nicaean Creed is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican Church, and most mainline Protestant churches with regard to the ontological status of the three persons of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Origen seems to have been the first ecclesiastical writer to use the word "homoousios" in a Trinitarian context,[5] but it is evident in his writings that he considered the Son's divinity lesser than the Father's, since he even calls the Son a creature.[6] It was by Athanasius and the Nicene Synod that the Son was taken to have exactly the same nature or essence with the Father, and at the Nicene Creed the Son was declared to be as immutable as his Father is.[7] Some theologians preferred the use of the term ὁμοιούσιος (homoioúsios, from ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar" rather than ὁμός, homós, "same") in order to emphasize distinctions among the three persons in the Godhead, but the term homoousios became a consistent mark of Nicene orthodoxy in both East and West. According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of Logos (or the divine word) and consequently possesses all of the inherent, ineffable perfections which religion and philosophy attribute to the Supreme Being. Three distinct and infinite minds or substances, three co-equal and eternal realities, participate in (or share) the same, single Divine Essence (ousia).

This doctrine was formulated in the 4th century during the extraordinary Trinitarian or Arian controversy. The several distinct branches of Arianism which sometimes conflicted with each other as well as with the pro-Nicene homoousian creed can be roughly broken down into the following classification:

Homoiousianism which maintained that the Son was "like in substance" but not necessarily to be identified with the essence of the Father.

Homoianism which declared that the Son was similar to God the father, without reference to substance or essence. Some supporters of Homoian formulae also supported one of the other descriptions. Other Homoians declared that God the father was so incomparable and ineffably transcendent that even the ideas of likeness, similarity or identity in substance or essence with the subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit were heretical and not justified by the Gospels. They held that the Father was like the Son in some sense but that even to speak of ousia was impertinent speculation.

Heteroousianism (including Anomoeanism) which held that God the father and the son were different in substance and/or attributes.

All of these positions and the almost innumerable variations on them which developed in the 4th century AD were strongly and tenaciously opposed by Athanasius and other pro-Nicenes who insisted on the doctrine of the homoousian (or as it is called in modern terms consubstantiality), eventually prevailing in the struggle to define the dogma of the Orthodox Church for the next two millennia when its use was confirmed by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 or 383.

It has also been noted that this Greek term "homoousian", which Athanasius of Alexandria favored, and was ratified in the Nicene Council and Creed, was actually a term reported to also be used and favored by the Sabellians in their Christology. And it was a term that many followers of Athanasius were actually uneasy about. And the "Semi-Arians", in particular, objected to the word "homoousian". Their objection to this term was that it was considered to be un-Scriptural, suspicious, and "of a Sabellian tendency."[8] This was because Sabellius also considered the Father and the Son to be "one substance." Meaning that, to Sabellius, the Father and Son were "one essential Person." This notion, however, was also rejected at the Council of Nicaea, in favor of the Athanasian formulation and creed, of the Father and Son being distinct yet also co-equal, co-eternal, and con-substantial Persons.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Homoousian

So it looks like Rob disagrees with what the Creed affirms and is falling into one of the "Heresys" of Arianism!

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[jo1952]

Just like Scientitsts worship at the altars of science and get really mad when the unwasshed masses try and steady their sacred cows. (E=Mc2)

Which is technically called idolatry.

Regards,

A member of the unwashed masses.

[Cobalt-70]

Then which ever one of them wrote the article for wikipedia got it wrong.

...

Or maybe it is just you that got it wrong.

The creation of space, matter, and energy was not the "initial condition" of the big bang. The initial condition was a region of absurdly low entropy, which occurred before any of the creation of matter or energy. Science has not come up with a good answer for where the low entropy came from (other than it could have happened randomly, and if it hadn't happened we wouldn't be here to talk about it), but once things got started, there was no need under in modern physics for a God to continually will the universe into being. Space, time, and matter were created by fairly well-understood natural processes. Some people think that God is responsible for the initial low entropy, but there are other possible explanations. Maybe this universe budded off a parent universe in which there was some physical process creating extremely low disorder in a small region.

[Zakuska]

The creation of space, matter, and energy was not the "initial condition" of the big bang. The initial condition was a region of absurdly low entropy, which occurred before any of the creation of matter or energy. Science has not come up with a good answer for where the low entropy came from (other than it could have happened randomly, and if it hadn't happened we wouldn't be here to talk about it), but once things got started, there was no need under in modern physics for a God to continually will the universe into being. Space, time, and matter were created by fairly well-understood natural processes. Some people think that God is responsible for the initial low entropy, but there are other possible explanations. Maybe this universe budded off a parent universe in which there was some physical process creating extremely low disorder in a small region.

Heres the problem space (the void black vaccum) didn't need to be created because it just was. You even said yourself that the Big Bang expanded into this void after all.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[The King's Servant]

Steve, You wrote: Putting words in my mouth, and then declaring, based on those words I never said, that I am applying a double standard, is a rhetorical trick, not a legitimate criticism. At this point, I'm not even arguing with Pratt and the other Mormon authorities. From their point of view, I don't believe in God. If one accepts Joseph's premise that whatever lacks body or parts is nothing, then Pratt's conclusion that orthodox theism is really a form of atheism follows logically. That is, if Joseph is right, we orthodox Christians not only don't worship God, we don't worship anything because an immaterial spirit is literally nothing. Of course, I disagree with these men, but I'm not criticizing them for speaking true to their convictions. I'm simply documenting that this is indeed a prevalent criticism of orthodox Christianity that has its roots in Joseph Smith's teaching and that prevailed throughout most of the twentieth century (and is still expressed by some Mormons today). From my point of view, the Mormon conception of God is false, radically so. They do not believe in the kind of God that is worshiped by orthodox Christians (as well as traditionalist Jews and Muslims). But they are not atheists from my perspective; they are polytheists (believers in many gods). I take a very dim view of Mormon theology, just as Smith, the Pratts, Roberts, Talmage, McConkie, et. al. took a very dim view of orthodox Christian theology. But I don't view Mormonism as a form of atheism; my criticism runs along different lines. I am not personally offended by the historic Mormon stance toward orthodox Christian theology. I am not personally offended by Mormons who forthrightly express such a stance. I am also not offended by Mormons who take a gentler attitude toward orthodox Christian theology. I am, however, personally offended by obviously intelligent, educated Mormons with decades in the LDS religion--individuals who should already have known that what I said was true--who accuse me of lying about the traditional Mormon criticism of orthodox Christian theology. You didn't do this, but others did--and there's no excuse for it.

I have a different take on the Mormon view of God. I see it as essentially atheistic - or, not believing in any type of being "other" than man as a deity. For Mormonism, God was once a man and learned to become a god. He progressed to godhood (see King Follett Discourse). In order to make an exalted human being a deity, one must diminish the nature of God, the eternality of God, the omnsicience of God (the Mormon God is always progressing in knowledge), and the omnipontence and omnipresence of God. Once the definition of God is changed, then the exalted human argument of Mormonism can be made acceptable to Mormon believers.

For this reason, Mormons are unable to actually comprehend a deity without flesh and bones, since gods are, in fact, men exalted to the highest order of existence. But, they are still men - beings contingent upon other beings for their existence. One Mormon writer states that if mankind did not "sustain" Heavenly Father, he would cease being a god.

Due to their inclination to think of everything in two demensional terms. Mormons are totally unable to grasp the idea of existence outside of a physical dimension. Thus, we have early Mormons calling Joseph Smith a god, and teaching that Heavenly Father had marital relations with the Blessed Virgin Mary in order for Jesus to be conceived (since repudiated by modern Mormons, although clearly taught by Young and others). For the Mormons, there is nothing but physical existence, even in the realm of spirit, which is simply refined matter.

Since, for the Mormons, God is really a human of the highest order, they are really a-theistic in the commonly accepted understanding of that word. For Christians, God is "other" than man; He is above man, and in an entirely spiritual dimension - outside of physical existence. Mormons tend to reject what their fallen, finite minds cannot understand (this was Smith's downfall). They do not reach outside the box, for in Mormondom, all existence MUST be physical, for their own deity is simply an exalted man.

Edited September 23, 2011 by The King's Servant

[zerinus]

Hmm. I thought it was in there, somewhere, but at any rate hasn't Rob said he believes God doesn't have any?

I know there is something in at least one of the non-"Mormon" creeds that states God has no body, parts, or passions. I'll have to double check to make sure one of them says something about God having no substance, or form.

The "body, parts, and passions" bit comes from the Westminster Confession, Chapter 2. But it still talks about God's "substance":

.

I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection,

a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions,

immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.

.

II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and to himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, to, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleases. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.

.

III. In the Godhead there be three Persons

of one substance,

power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

[Cobalt-70]

It started with something...

The "primeval atom" idea (invented by a Catholic priest, by the way) is not the current understanding of the big bang. Under current theory, there was no initial hot "atom." Rather, the universe started as a cold state of extremely low entropy. Matter and energy came later, as a natural consequence of the expansion of space.

[Zakuska]

Perhaps Rob and others could confirm for us if their God is not Cosubstantial with Jesus his son.

CONSUBSTANTIAL : of the same substance

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

The "primeval atom" idea (invented by a Catholic priest, by the way) is not the current understanding of the big bang. Under current theory, there was no initial hot "atom." Rather, the universe started as a cold state of extremely low entropy. Matter and energy came later, as a natural consequence of the expansion of space.

Yes I've seen it explained on the Discovery Channel (or was it History) There were 4 forces or something and that some how came together in the very dense spot and then all "matter was created" in the first few seconds of the big bang. Just another example of a reversal in Science. I was told Matter can not be created or destroyed only changed from one form into another. And now 20 years latter they are saying it was created?!

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Cobalt-70]

Heres the problem space (the void black vaccum) didn't need to be created because it just was. You even said yourself that the Big Bang expanded into this void after all.

The big bang did not "expand into" anything. There was no void. The thing that expanded was space itself. Distances in all directions just got larger, while the newly-created space filled with radiant energy released naturally as a consequence of the fact that space was expanding.

[Zakuska]

The big bang did not "expand into" anything. There was no void. The thing that expanded was space itself. Distances in all directions just got larger, while the newly-created space filled with radiant energy released naturally as a consequence of the fact that space was expanding.

Theres the problem with that. how can infinity get any bigger? That would mean theres an edge to space some where and possibly when one goes beyond that they reach Tartarus?

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

I have a different take on the Mormon view of God. I see it as essentially atheistic - or, not believing in any type of being "other" than man as a deity.

Just as much an error for you to think this as it is for any LDS to think a Trinitarian is atheistic.

For this reason, Mormons are unable to actually comprehend a deity without flesh and bones.....

You do know we believe that the Holy Ghost is God and that Christ was God before he was incarnate, don't you?

One Mormon writer states that if mankind did not "sustain" Heavenly Father, he would cease being a god.

CFR

Due to their inclination to think of everything in two demensional terms. Mormons are totally unable to grasp the idea of existence outside of a physical dimension.

Perhaps some but certainly not all.

[jo1952]

Perhaps Rob and others could confirm for us if their God is not Cosubstantial with Jesus his son.

CONSUBSTANTIAL : of the same substance

I had a question enter my head the other night while studying the Book of Daniel. Daniel is tremendously exciting to study - especially inasmuch as it is written partially to the Jews (in Hebrew), and partially written to the Gentiles (in Aramaic). Of course, the end times prophesies are awesome, it contains the interrupted prayer which teaches us about how powerful the dominions and principalities of darkness really are,etc., and King Nebuchadnezzar himself wrote the fourth chapter... Anyway, it got me thinking about how Jesus is Jewish. He is the God of Abraham; thus the God who covenanted with Abraham long before Jesus was ever born in the flesh. So, here is my question to Trinitarians. Is the Trinity Jewish? I am not being light hearted here; I seriously wonder if those who believe in the Trinity have ever thought this through. If Father, Son and Holy Ghost are, indeed, of the same substance (and/or essence), wouldn't they also all be Jewish? Also, then, how would this look to those who believe in Replacement Theology? Does this mean that converted Gentiles (not forgetting, btw, that Jesus was also called Rabbi) believe in a Jewish God? Somehow, wouldn't this also make God a respector of persons? This opens a huge box of questions.

Best regards,

jo

[Ahab]

The "body, parts, and passions" bit comes from the Westminster Confession, Chapter 2. But it still talks about God's "substance":

.

I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection,

a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions,

immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.

.

II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and to himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, to, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleases. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.

.

III. In the Godhead there be three Persons

of one substance,

power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

I kinda already knew that at least one of the creeds mentioned something about God having some type of substance, because I can recall talking about it before with others while describing it as something like DNA. I think I just got into the "no substance" mindset because of something Rob said about him believing God had no form and no substance.

Thanks for providing the text of that creed, though. I like to try to stay current about what other people believe.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Ahab

[Cobalt-70]

Theres the problem with that. how can infinity get any bigger? That would mean theres an edge to space some where and possibly when one goes beyond that they reach Tartarus?

Not necessarily. The universe could be infinite yet still expand. What is expending is the spaces between things (like galaxies, etc.) Space could be expanding everywhere even in an infinite universe. It is also possible that just our small patch of an infinite universe is expanding (small being a relative term--it would still be incomprehensibly farther than what we could ever see with telescopes). If space is not infinite, then it would have to be bounded like a sphere, so that there are no edges.

[Ahab]

The big bang did not "expand into" anything. There was no void. The thing that expanded was space itself. Distances in all directions just got larger, while the newly-created space filled with radiant energy released naturally as a consequence of the fact that space was expanding.

Ack! Think about what you're saying, man! Get a grip on reality!

Space is the dark empty... uh, "space"... out there in the universe, and if you were to take all of the matter out of it all you would be left with is the nothing it is. You can't make "nothing" bigger.than it is, as if you can expand the borders of nothing. Nothing has no borders, because it is in fact nothing, so the only stuff out there is the stuff that is in it, with the rest of being the "space" between all of it.

Where do people come up with all of these crazy ideas?!?

[Ahab]

Not necessarily. The universe could be infinite yet still expand. What is expending is the spaces between things (like galaxies, etc.) Space could be expanding everywhere even in an infinite universe. It is also possible that just our small patch of an infinite universe is expanding (small being a relative term--it would still be incomprehensibly farther than what we could ever see with telescopes). If space is not infinite, then it would have to be bounded like a sphere, so that there are no edges.

Uh. Hello!

What makes you think infinite space can get bigger? It's already infinite. Do you know how big infinite is? It is endless, and you can't get more endless than endless.

I wish I could see the look on your face when you eventually realize how wrong you are now.

[The King's Servant]

I kinda already knew that at least one of the creeds mentioned something about God having some type of substance, because I can recall talking about it before with others while describing it as something like DNA. I think I just got into the "no substance" mindset because of something Rob said about him believing God had no form and no substance.

Thanks for providing the text of that creed, though. I like to try to stay current about what other people believe.

The Nicene Creed states that Christ is of ONE SUBSTANCE with the FATHER." The Substance of Spirit is outside the realm of physical existence. It is "other." Spirit is not visible - for God is Spirit, and God is Invisible. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the same substance as the Father, and none else are. A man cannot share their substance, other than to partake of God's energies. For instance, were you to take a metal rod and put it into a blazing furnace (the furnace being God, the rod being man), the rod will turn firey red and hot. It has partaken of the energies of God, but it is not the furnace, nor is it the fire. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the furnace, they are the firey substance, and they alone are God. Men cannot become gods, they are creatures. They will always be creatures.

Edited September 23, 2011 by The King's Servant

[Zakuska]

What is expanding is the spaces between things (like galaxies, etc.)

I can more or less agree with this.