If there was universe before big bang

[PruePhillip]

Because people, including you write stuff you claim he said. You don't know this, you only know that a 3rd party claims jesus said those words.

Again JC was not the Messiah, he didn't meet the requirements as laid down in Jewish scripture.

Hannibal does not have a third of the world's population trying to make laws and run countries, in their favour at the expense of those who don't have the same faith. Hannibal does not have groups of people indoctrinating children to deny science in favour of superstition.

As for indoctrinating or forcing faith upon other people. The Catholic Church forced conversions - and that utterly shocks me.
But it's been said of Christianity that we today are 'living off the smell of an empty vase.' Christianity was the flower and all
we have is the smell --- that smell is the things it once taught us and informed our laws, constitutions, behavior to others....
At its peak in Europe Christianity meant there were no slaves and people saw themselves as being a part of the true
worldwide faith. By 1900 people felt the new century would herald a new age of technology, science - and no monarchy
and no religion. Over a quarter of a billion people died in secular wars, pogroms, genocides, Communism and forced famines.

 

[gnostic]

So... King David is found to be a real person but that then leaves
1 - did he write all those psalms and songs?
2 - did he really speak to God, and visa versa?

There are no evidence that Psalms were written in the 10th century BCE.

Writings did exist in the 10th century BCE with oldest form of Hebrew alphabet (more commonly known by modern scholars as Proto-Canaanite alphabet), eg Calendar and Zayit Stone, but none of them included Psalms or any biblical texts (eg Samuel, Songs) exist in this century.

Plus there are no evidence that Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges existing in the Late Bronze Age (period dating c 1550 - c 1150 BCE, which nearly coincided with the Kassite dynasty at Babylon, 1531 - 1155 BCE).

The oldest evidence of any biblical text, were found in cave of Ketef Hinnom, that served as a tomb, where amulet made of silver rolled sheets that contained part of passage in Numbers 6 concerning the Priestly Blessing (6:23-27). Hence the amulet was known as the Silver Scrolls, which was dated between 630 and 590 BCE. The date cannot be more exact, so that would put the date between the reigns of Josiah and that of Zedekiah just before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonian army (587-586 BCE).

According to the legend, the reign of Josiah of Judah, sparked the Deuternomic Reform, the practice of monotheism (which included destroying idols) and start of beginning of biblical literature.

But most of the evidence of biblical literary flourishing in the next century (6th century BCE), meaning the Babylonian Exile and their return.

There are no evidence to support any books existing in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.

 

[PruePhillip]

There are no evidence that Psalms were written in the 10th century BCE.

Writings did exist in the 10th century BCE with oldest form of Hebrew alphabet (more commonly known by modern scholars as Proto-Canaanite alphabet), eg Calendar and Zayit Stone, but none of them included Psalms or any biblical texts (eg Samuel, Songs) exist in this century.

Plus there are no evidence that Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges existing in the Late Bronze Age (period dating c 1550 - c 1150 BCE, which nearly coincided with the Kassite dynasty at Babylon, 1531 - 1155 BCE).

The oldest evidence of any biblical text, were found in cave of Ketef Hinnom, that served as a tomb, where amulet made of silver rolled sheets that contained part of passage in Numbers 6 concerning the Priestly Blessing (6:23-27). Hence the amulet was known as the Silver Scrolls, which was dated between 630 and 590 BCE. The date cannot be more exact, so that would put the date between the reigns of Josiah and that of Zedekiah just before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Neo-Babylonian army (587-586 BCE).

According to the legend, the reign of Josiah of Judah, sparked the Deuternomic Reform, the practice of monotheism (which included destroying idols) and start of beginning of biblical literature.

But most of the evidence of biblical literary flourishing in the next century (6th century BCE), meaning the Babylonian Exile and their return.

There are no evidence to support any books existing in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age.

As of now, the oldest religious text (not biblical but religious) would be from Joshua's altar with the cursing tablet.
This relates to when the Hebrews arrived back in Canaan Late Bronze Age and set up the hill of blessing and
the hill of cursing. That would be, what? 1200 BC ?
That we haven't found any psalm from 1000 BC or Abrahamic text from 1700 BC just means we haven't found any,
not that none existed. Papyrus doesn't last long and the Jews did not create grand monuments to themseves like
Egyptians did, for instance.

 

[gnostic]

As of now, the oldest religious text (not biblical but religious) would be from Joshua's altar with the cursing tablet.

I am talking of actual inscriptions of any books of the Bible.

The curse tablet don't quote anything from the OT.

The Tel Megiddo royal archives contained thousands of fragments of clay tablets, all written in Canaanite cuneiform (not Canaanite alphabet), dating between 1450 to 1200 BCE. Not a single mention of Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses or Joshua, none of the OT books being quoted, and yet among these thousands, they found fragments containing parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Despite being under Egyptian rule during Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE), Megiddo continued to prosper in the Late Bronze Age.

And in the 2nd millennium BCE, before the introduction of the alphabet (eg Proto-Canaanite alphabet), cuneiform were the common writing systems in Canaan (this writing system were used throughout the Near East), not hieroglyphs (like the Egyptian hieroglyphs).

And clay tablets were frequently used by the Canaanites, not papyri.

Papyri as medium to write on, were long process and expensive process. It needed to be planted, grown, harvested, sliced into thin strips, put together the strips (hammering into single sheet), dried and treated...as I said it take a long time to manufacture even a single sheet of papyrus.

Even the Dead Sea Scrolls were mostly written on parchment scrolls, which make up more than 85% (made from either lamb or goat hides). Only 13% of the scrolls were made of papyrus.

Even though Egypt was a closer neighbor than Babylonia and Assyria, the 2nd millennium Canaanites have followed the Babylonian example, preferring to use clay tablets and cuneiform writing system.

Yes there are some hieroglyphs in Canaan in this millennium BCE, but hieroglyphs were used by the Egyptian themselves.

The evidence speak for itself, PruePhillip. No Hebrew biblical texts exist in the Late Bronze Age or the Early Iron Age. All you are doing, is basing your belief that these texts were written by Moses and David, but that's just wishful thinking, not a historical reality.

And you are wrong. Papyri can last as long as any parchment or vellum, as long as they are stored in the dry environment, and very low humidity.

 

[PruePhillip]

I am talking of actual inscriptions of any books of the Bible.

The curse tablet don't quote anything from the OT.

The Tel Megiddo royal archives contained thousands of fragments of clay tablets, all written in Canaanite cuneiform (not Canaanite alphabet), dating between 1450 to 1200 BCE. Not a single mention of Noah, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses or Joshua, none of the OT books being quoted, and yet among these thousands, they found fragments containing parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Despite being under Egyptian rule during Thutmose III (1479 - 1425 BCE), Megiddo continued to prosper in the Late Bronze Age.

And in the 2nd millennium BCE, before the introduction of the alphabet (eg Proto-Canaanite alphabet), cuneiform were the common writing systems in Canaan (this writing system were used throughout the Near East), not hieroglyphs (like the Egyptian hieroglyphs).

And clay tablets were frequently used by the Canaanites, not papyri.

Papyri as medium to write on, were long process and expensive process. It needed to be planted, grown, harvested, sliced into thin strips, put together the strips (hammering into single sheet), dried and treated...as I said it take a long time to manufacture even a single sheet of papyrus.

Even the Dead Sea Scrolls were mostly written on parchment scrolls, which make up more than 85% (made from either lamb or goat hides). Only 13% of the scrolls were made of papyrus.

Even though Egypt was a closer neighbor than Babylonia and Assyria, the 2nd millennium Canaanites have followed the Babylonian example, preferring to use clay tablets and cuneiform writing system.

Yes there are some hieroglyphs in Canaan in this millennium BCE, but hieroglyphs were used by the Egyptian themselves.

The evidence speak for itself, PruePhillip. No Hebrew biblical texts exist in the Late Bronze Age or the Early Iron Age. All you are doing, is basing your belief that these texts were written by Moses and David, but that's just wishful thinking, not a historical reality.

And you are wrong. Papyri can last as long as any parchment or vellum, as long as they are stored in the dry environment, and very low humidity.

Sure, Jews didn't use clay tablets. They lived mostly in the hills of Canaan. No clay.
That this Tel Megiddo library exists is great - we need written texts more than any other archaelogical thing,
but no mention of a wandering Semite called Abraham doesn't mean anything. Lots of Abraham type guys
back then.
And the curse tablet shows that Mt Ebal was the mountain of cursing in Joshua's day - no other curse
monument or event happened in the bible, just Mt Ebal. They are now going to search for the plaster that
the bible says had the commandment engraved. Of course to skeptics it will prove nothing.

 

[ChristineM]

As for indoctrinating or forcing faith upon other people. The Catholic Church forced conversions - and that utterly shocks me.
But it's been said of Christianity that we today are 'living off the smell of an empty vase.' Christianity was the flower and all
we have is the smell --- that smell is the things it once taught us and informed our laws, constitutions, behavior to others....
At its peak in Europe Christianity meant there were no slaves and people saw themselves as being a part of the true
worldwide faith. By 1900 people felt the new century would herald a new age of technology, science - and no monarchy
and no religion. Over a quarter of a billion people died in secular wars, pogroms, genocides, Communism and forced famines.

Do you know why the puritans shipped out and moved to America? Because laws in Europe curtaild their tactice of forced conversion.

Wilberforce came in late to the abolition movement, joining thomas Clarkson and his group. Clarkson renounced his religion. He was also the more powerful player in the group. While Wilberforce spoke in UK parliament Clarkson was out doing the work. So to say Christianity abolished slavery is really quite misleading.

No monarchy in the UK, are you crazy or what? In the 1900s monarchy was paramount, an empire was built on it and at its height then. Not only in the UK but several other countries in Europe.

So you say WwI and ii were the fault of religion... Funnily enough Hitler was Christian but i don't think that had much to do with the war although certain aspects of his aggression were distinctly christian and it took a lot or his christian followers to manage those death camps.

My research also indicates Stalin was also Christian despite his ultra nationalism that many consider atheism.

The atomic bombs were dropped by a Christian nation.

Both wars can be squarely blamed on national pride. Nothing to do with secularism but as i have said previously believed whatever massages your ego

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you know why the puritans shipped out and moved to America? Because laws in Europe curtaild their tactice of forced conversion.

Wilberforce came in late to the abolition movement, joining thomas Clarkson and his group. Clarkson renounced his religion. He was also the more powerful player in the group. While Wilberforce spoke in UK parliament Clarkson was out doing the work. So to say Christianity abolished slavery is really quite misleading.

No monarchy in the UK, are you crazy or what? In the 1900s monarchy was paramount, an empire was built on it and at its height then. Not only in the UK but several other countries in Europe.

So you say WwI and ii were the fault of religion... Funnily enough Hitler was Christian but i don't think that had much to do with the war although certain aspects of his aggression were distinctly christian and it took a lot or his christian followers to manage those death camps.

My research also indicates Stalin was also Christian despite his ultra nationalism that many consider atheism.

The atomic bombs were dropped by a Christian nation.

Both wars can be squarely blamed on national pride. Nothing to do with secularism but as i have said previously believed whatever massages your ego

We don't know that with intellectual honesty. He might have been.

 

[PruePhillip]

Do you know why the puritans shipped out and moved to America? Because laws in Europe curtaild their tactice of forced conversion.

Wilberforce came in late to the abolition movement, joining thomas Clarkson and his group. Clarkson renounced his religion. He was also the more powerful player in the group. While Wilberforce spoke in UK parliament Clarkson was out doing the work. So to say Christianity abolished slavery is really quite misleading.

No monarchy in the UK, are you crazy or what? In the 1900s monarchy was paramount, an empire was built on it and at its height then. Not only in the UK but several other countries in Europe.

So you say WwI and ii were the fault of religion... Funnily enough Hitler was Christian but i don't think that had much to do with the war although certain aspects of his aggression were distinctly christian and it took a lot or his christian followers to manage those death camps.

My research also indicates Stalin was also Christian despite his ultra nationalism that many consider atheism.

The atomic bombs were dropped by a Christian nation.

Both wars can be squarely blamed on national pride. Nothing to do with secularism but as i have said previously believed whatever massages your ego

Stalin studied for the Orthodox ministry. Hitler's mother was Catholic. I think Mussolini was Catholic. Mao and Pol Pot came from
Buddhist backgrounds. And so on, so forth. Imagine if these people kept to their faith. But the 20th Century saw a great falling
away. What was that saying? To strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest?
Slavery slipped back into some 'Christian' nations - I was refering to the vast slave economy of Rome which mostly disappeared
with the rise of Christianity. Interesting about Puritans - should look them up. Forced conversion shows an abject ignorance of the
tenants of the New Testament.

 

[ChristineM]

Stalin studied for the Orthodox ministry. Hitler's mother was Catholic. I think Mussolini was Catholic. Mao and Pol Pot came from
Buddhist backgrounds. And so on, so forth. Imagine if these people kept to their faith. But the 20th Century saw a great falling
away. What was that saying? To strangle the last king with the entrails of the last priest?
Slavery slipped back into some 'Christian' nations - I was refering to the vast slave economy of Rome which mostly disappeared
with the rise of Christianity. Interesting about Puritans - should look them up. Forced conversion shows an abject ignorance of the
tenants of the New Testament.

Stalin did much for the church, essentially reinstated it in Russia after the revolution... Which was in part caused by the abuses of the pre revolutionary church.
Hitler continued his christianity throughout his life. An example...

Gott mit uns - god with us. He instilled into his armies.

Pol pot remained Buddhism, only mao renounced his religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Stalin did much for the church, essentially reinstated it in Russia after the revolution... Which was in part caused by the abuses of the pre revolutionary church.
Hitler continued his christianity throughout his life. An example...
View attachment 62688

Gott mit uns - god with us. He instilled into his armies.

Pol pot remained Buddhism, only mao renounced his religion.

That doesn't mean that he was a Christian.

 

[PruePhillip]

Stalin did much for the church, essentially reinstated it in Russia after the revolution... Which was in part caused by the abuses of the pre revolutionary church.
Hitler continued his christianity throughout his life. An example...
View attachment 62688

Gott mit uns - god with us. He instilled into his armies.

Pol pot remained Buddhism, only mao renounced his religion.

It's really sad when I hear people say that Hitler was a Christian. He wasn't, he was a devil.
The real abuse of the church was what the Bolsheviks and Communists DID to the Russian church.
Not sure how a Communist can also be a Buddhist, that's like a Nazi also being a Christian.

 

[ChristineM]

It's really sad when I hear people say that Hitler was a Christian. He wasn't, he was a devil.
The real abuse of the church was what the Bolsheviks and Communists DID to the Russian church.
Not sure how a Communist can also be a Buddhist, that's like a Nazi also being a Christian.

Of course you don't like the idea of an evil Christian but there is little doubt that hitler was such a beast. There is so much evidence to suggest he was Christian, i have posted one such piece above. His speeches, his actions, even the Catholic church/Vatican still considers he was Catholic. But many Christians disregard Matthew 7 and turn their judgement on him by denying him his religion.

The point about Russia that it wasn't really the church but what it entailed. Due to a paranoid government all meetings of more than 6 people were banned. So a congregation meeting to worship was illegal and dealt with according to the law. The same law applied to other groups, atheism was very badly hit also.

You have to consider the sort of abuse and pressure that could turn a Buddhist a violent.

 

[PruePhillip]

Of course you don't like the idea of an evil Christian but there is little doubt that hitler was such a beast. There is so much evidence to suggest he was Christian, i have posted one such piece above. His speeches, his actions, even the Catholic church/Vatican still considers he was Catholic. But many Christians disregard Matthew 7 and turn their judgement on him by denying him his religion.

The point about Russia that it wasn't really the church but what it entailed. Due to a paranoid government all meetings of more than 6 people were banned. So a congregation meeting to worship was illegal and dealt with according to the law. The same law applied to other groups, atheism was very badly hit also.

You have to consider the sort of abuse and pressure that could turn a Buddhist a violent.

So when we say Hitler was a Christian it shows the desperate need to DEFINE what a Christian is.
Many thousands of priests were murdered by the Bolsheviks, and many churches torn down. Please
don't say that these guys were Christians too.

 

[ChristineM]

So when we say Hitler was a Christian it shows the desperate need to DEFINE what a Christian is.
Many thousands of priests were murdered by the Bolsheviks, and many churches torn down. Please
don't say that these guys were Christians too.

No, it shows what his faith was and it shows you deny him his faith. The Vatican had no problems accepting him as Catholic.

Jeez, i explained why people were killed in Russia. You want to make it all about Christianity then thatvis up to you. It makes no difference to the facts

 

[PruePhillip]

No, it shows what his faith was and it shows you deny him his faith. The Vatican had no problems accepting him as Catholic.

Jeez, i explained why people were killed in Russia. You want to make it all about Christianity then thatvis up to you. It makes no difference to the facts

There basically three definitions of a Christian
1 - someone from a Christian country
2 - someone who adopts some Christian culture, ie observers Christmas, maybe attends some church
3 - someone who respects and emulates the standard of Christ

Europe and America are #1 'Christian' countries. But practicing Christians are a minority in both continents
Putin is a 'Christian' ---- you might say he's a #2 as he employs Russian Orthodox beliefs for his own ends
I say the Pope is a #2, his wealth, pomp, power and doctrines not found in scripture don't speak of Christ to me.

And Hitler? Someone from a Christian country, ie Germany.

 

[ChristineM]

There basically three definitions of a Christian
1 - someone from a Christian country
2 - someone who adopts some Christian culture, ie observers Christmas, maybe attends some church
3 - someone who respects and emulates the standard of Christ

Europe and America are #1 'Christian' countries. But practicing Christians are a minority in both continents
Putin is a 'Christian' ---- you might say he's a #2 as he employs Russian Orthodox beliefs for his own ends
I say the Pope is a #2, his wealth, pomp, power and doctrines not found in scripture don't speak of Christ to me.

And Hitler? Someone from a Christian country, ie Germany.

Methinks you are judging countries based on ignorance of those countries. Several countries in Europe are majority Catholic and really quite dedicated to the church and their religion. Not to fundinental American standards of course, i wouldn't with that on anyone.
However, education, the internet and freedoms that were not available 50 years ago are reducing the number of religious folk

Interestingly Germany is (and was a Protestant majority country with a minority of Catholics)

 

[PruePhillip]

Methinks you are judging countries based on ignorance of those countries. Several countries in Europe are majority Catholic and really quite dedicated to the church and their religion. Not to fundinental American standards of course, i wouldn't with that on anyone.
However, education, the internet and freedoms that were not available 50 years ago are reducing the number of religious folk

Interestingly Germany is (and was a Protestant majority country with a minority of Catholics)

So when Protestants burned 'witches' - was that a Christian thing to do?
When the Catholic Inquisition killed over a million 'herectics' that was a Christian act?

The key driver for the decline of religion is not education but higher standards of living.
A turn around in living standards and security will drive up religious numbes again.

Yes, you get religious people dedicated to their church, but I feel they are living by what
I suppose you call 'modernized Christianity', such as the Catholic belief in indulgences.

How do Catholic indulgences work?
In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can
receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no
formal ceremony or sacrament

Such practices I feel are scandalous - they have no basis in anything found in scripture
and became a major money making scheme.

You could perhaps DIFFERENTIATE, for the same of argument, church doctrine from
New Testament doctrine. Thus showing reverence to Jesus is NT Christianity and
reverence for Mary, Queen of Heaven, is not NT Christianity.

And on this basis I am not sure what NT Christianity Hitler observed.

 

[ChristineM]

So when Protestants burned 'witches' - was that a Christian thing to do?

Yes exodus 21:18

When the Catholic Inquisition killed over a million 'herectics' that was a Christian act?

Yes, at the time it was considered to be a Christian act.

The key driver for the decline of religion is not education but higher standards of living

So lets all go back to the bronze age.

A turn around in living standards and security will drive up religious numbes again

Force?

Yes, you get religious people dedicated to their church, but I feel they are living by what
I suppose you call 'modernized Christianity', such as the Catholic belief in indulgences.

Don't criticise, don't judge is the Christian thing to do

Such practices I feel are scandalous - they have no basis in anything found in scripture
and became a major money making scheme.

Yes, the whole of organised religion is about power over the people

You could perhaps DIFFERENTIATE, for the same of argument, church doctrine from
New Testament doctrine. Thus showing reverence to Jesus is NT Christianity and
reverence for Mary, Queen of Heaven, is not NT Christianity

So tge 85% of the bible is irrelevant to Christianity, so why is it there?

And on this basis I am not sure what NT Christianity Hitler observed.

It is said that he believed the jews killed his christ.

 

[PruePhillip]

It is said that he believed the jews killed his christ.

There was no 'his' Christ for Hitler. When Hitler said 'The Jews want war' and 'The Jew are overrunning Europe'
he of course meant himself and Germany. The Jews were a psychological foil for his evil behavior, ie 'It's
obvious there's evil in the world, but it isn't me.'

Christians do not live under the Old Testament. This book is considered symbolic.
And 'judging' has two meanings in Christianity
1 - judge what is right and wrong
2 - just who is right and wrong.

So you can tell a person they should not commit adultery, but you can't say that person is condemned to
hell fire for adultery. Judging is very important - especially for yourself.

 

[ChristineM]

There was no 'his' Christ for Hitler.

Yes there was. Your judgement is irrelevant.

Christians do not live under the Old Testament. This book is considered symbolic.
And 'judging' has two meanings in Christianity

Yet so many Christians consider OT threats to be valid christianity.

1 - judge what is right and wrong
2 - just who is right and wrong

Convenient about having 2 meanings eh, meaning Christian can judge when he/she wants but no one is allowed to judge them

So you can tell a person they should not commit adultery, but you can't say that person is condemned to
hell fire for adultery. Judging is very important - especially for yourself

What right have you to tell anyone anything about their personal life style? If you don't want to commit adultery then fine. If Joe or Brenda down the road does want to commit adultery that is entirely up to them. Stay out of other people's bedrooms.

And yes, i, my parents, my children, have been condemned to hell by true Christians because i am atheist