If there was universe before big bang

[PruePhillip]

Yes, over 2 1/4 billion people say that

Sure, you can SAY that, but words won't get you far.

 

[Ilyan Kei Lavanway]

What if our universe was not the first one, but just one of many universes that has existed?

How would it affect your religious beliefs?

Would a string of universes be yet an other reason for people to not believe in a God or gods?

I believe all universes have a beginning, and were created by human intelligences who have gone through the process of achieving immortality and eternal life, becoming gods, by obedience to eternal divine laws and covenants available to all human intelligences. The work and glory of God is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Our Heavenly Father is the only God we should worship, because he is literally the Father of our spirits. We are not mere creations of God. We are literal offspring of God.

While universes do and must have a beginning, intelligences do not have a beginning. They have always existed. Intelligences are not created or made, neither indeed can be. They have always been. Each has a unique, individual and eternal identity and gender, and agency to act.

God, our Heavenly Father, directs the creation of infinitely many universes by and through his only begotten Son in the flesh, Jesus Christ. Hence, we refer to Jesus Christ as the Creator. The fact that infinitely many universes exist is all the more reason for me to believe in God. Universes cannot create themselves any more than an explosion in a print shop can create a dictionary.

I believe our Heavenly Father organizes his universes after a simple, cosmic pattern analogous to the concentric layers of an onion. Each layer represents a universe. The outermost layers expand more rapidly than the inner layers, and all layers accelerate their expansion eternally, making room for new layers (universes) created at or near the core of the "onion." This pattern is used by all gods, but we only worship and communicate with our God, the Father of our spirits.

Anyone interested in information too lengthy to post here, and which would get me restricted if I were to post it, please contact me and I will personally email you further information to consider.

 

[ppp]

Sure, you can SAY that, but words won't get you far.

Her point was that you are one of those 2 1/4 billion people SAYing that the definition of Christianity is that which pertains to Christ, his teachings, his example and his life. And you are all SAYing that the Bible supports your individual beliefs. And yes, @PruePhillip, you can say that, @PruePhillip, but your saying it won't get you far.

 

[PruePhillip]

Her point was that you are one of those 2 1/4 billion people SAYing that the definition of Christianity is that which pertains to Christ, his teachings, his example and his life. And you are all SAYing that the Bible supports your individual beliefs. And yes, @PruePhillip, you can say that, @PruePhillip, but your saying it won't get you far.

There are some who believe in indulgences, for instance, that you can pay cash for the redemption of your own sins.
This is what offended Luther the most. Was he right? I say he is because that's something added to the New Testament.
Only, the New Testament is now a canon so you can't play with the text - so indulgences are something handed down
by the church fathers of another age. So yeah, I find things which people believe to have no basis in scripture.

 

[ppp]

So yeah, I find things which people believe to have no basis in scripture.

We already knew that you disagree with other Christians, just like other Christians disagree with you.

 

[PruePhillip]

We already knew that you disagree with other Christians, just like other Christians disagree with you.

It's not just a matter of 'disagreeing', the issue is with people who invent their own scripture and their own saints.
The example of indulgences is just one example of invented scripture - giving the church money turns faith into
merchandise; using that money to save you is worse than merchandise and getting out of purgatory is not found
in the bible.
It's like believing in a flat earth.

 

[gnostic]

It's like believing in a flat earth.

That would be more akin to the YEC creationists and to the Intelligent Design creationists.

 

[ppp]

It's not just a matter of 'disagreeing', the issue is with people who invent their own scripture and their own saints.
The example of indulgences is just one example of invented scripture - giving the church money turns faith into
merchandise; using that money to save you is worse than merchandise and getting out of purgatory is not found
in the bible.
It's like believing in a flat earth.

All that you're doing is saying that your interpretation and exegesis is correct and that the interpretation and exegesis of others is incorrect.

And it is nothing like beliefs about the Earth. In order for belief about the shape of Earth to be analogous to your God beliefs, there would have to be no evidence of an earth or planets. Only old books written by primitive people thousands of years dead.

 

[PruePhillip]

All that you're doing is saying that your interpretation and exegesis is correct and that the interpretation and exegesis of others is incorrect.

And it is nothing like beliefs about the Earth. In order for belief about the shape of Earth to be analogous to your God beliefs, there would have to be no evidence of an earth or planets. Only old books written by primitive people thousands of years dead.

No, I am not talking about interpretation, I am saying that there are doctrines totally INVENTED.
This was Luther's issue with the Roman Catholic Church.
It's very hard to 'interpret' the example of Christ, even a child was see that plainly. So if you feel
you can kill people for heresy then you are essentially hiding behind 'interpretation.'

 

[PruePhillip]

That would be more akin to the YEC creationists and to the Intelligent Design creationists.

Not sure what YEC means. But here I refer to STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR as found in the Gospels and the
Apostolic Church.

nb I am fine with evolution, marvel at it actually. Genesis tells us the earth and the seas brought forth life.

 

[rational experiences]

O earth is where we live exist. A planet.

It's natural O the planet with its heavens mass. The equal human life. One species two of each species natural life.

Once no satanic human theist existed and life was wonderful. No rich liars no manipulators coercers or b.s artists. Once. No machines no Ai. A healthy mutual life.

When you regain reinherit human life with god earth. No rich people no theists no Ai machines is your human answer.

Don't like the truth..... it's because life says it won't happen.

 

[gnostic]

nb I am fine with evolution, marvel at it actually. Genesis tells us the earth and the seas brought forth life.

There is however, nothing unique or original on Genesis creation and flood myths, because there are much ancient myths from 3rd millennium Sumer and Egypt.

And what they all have in common, including Genesis,

• is that they don't explain anything about the natural reality,
  
• and is that they are all wrong,
  
  • scientifically (about the astronomy, about the Earth itself and about life),
  • and historically (in regarding to human history).

You say Genesis that God brought forth life.

For one, birds never predated land animals, and land plants had never predate marine invertebrates.

Plus Genesis never explain the anatomy and physiology for every species of animals or every species of plants.

Evolution, not only explain these, but also what changed in the anatomy for each species of each genera and families.

Genesis is too vague on the details, and calling them as "kinds", EXPLAINS NOTHING! It is no better than Egyptian creation myths or Sumerian/Babylonian myths.

 

[PruePhillip]

There is however, nothing unique or original on Genesis creation and flood myths, because there are much ancient myths from 3rd millennium Sumer and Egypt.

And what they all have in common, including Genesis,

• is that they don't explain anything about the natural reality,
  
• and is that they are all wrong,
  • scientifically (about the astronomy, about the Earth itself and about life),
  • and historically (in regarding to human history).

You say Genesis that God brought forth life.

For one, birds never predated land animals, and land plants had never predate marine invertebrates.

Plus Genesis never explain the anatomy and physiology for every species of animals or every species of plants.

Evolution, not only explain these, but also what changed in the anatomy for each species of each genera and families.

Genesis is too vague on the details, and calling them as "kinds", EXPLAINS NOTHING! It is no better than Egyptian creation myths or Sumerian/Babylonian myths.

There's two Genesis accounts in Chapter 1. The first is written in symbolic language, the second is highly abract and symbolic.
The 'days' of the first account refer to stages - these are
1- creation of the heavens and the earth
2 - a view of this earth - dark, oceanic and sterile
3 - the clearning of the cloud deck
4 - the rise of the continents
5 - the appearance of life on LAND, (ie fresh water)
6 - the appearance of life in the sea
7 - man.

 

[gnostic]

Not sure what YEC means.

Those who believe in Young Earth Creationism, where the creation is -

1. about 6000 years for those followed translation of the Hebrew source, Masoretic Text (mostly western translations),
2. or longer with the Greek Septuagint Bible (for those who followed the Greek or Eastern Orthodox churches), about 7500 years.
3. A 3rd YEC group that believe the Earth to be about 13,000 years old, where each creative day equals 1000 years.

OEC varied widely where some OEC creationists do accept the science’s number of 4.54 billion years, the age of the Earth.

 

[PruePhillip]

Those who believe in Young Earth Creationism, where the creation is -

1. about 6000 years for those followed translation of the Hebrew source, Masoretic Text (mostly western translations),
2. or longer with the Greek Septuagint Bible (for those who followed the Greek or Eastern Orthodox churches), about 7500 years.
3. A 3rd YEC group that believe the Earth to be about 13,000 years old, where each creative day equals 1000 years.

OEC varied widely where some OEC creationists do accept the science’s number of 4.54 billion years, the age of the Earth.

Oh ok. They're not young people who believe this.... ha ha.
A lot of people try to draw conclusions about the physical world from the bible. But the bible doesn't really help.
As Galileo put it, 'The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.'
The invention of the lightning rod was classic - that you could direct lightning astonished a lot of people in an
age of religion. As if lightning was something God sent. I am fine with the idea that God indeed does this, but
through natural processes. Same with life. Says 'God commanded the earth to bring forth life' FIRST, then that
'God commanded the seas to bring forth life.' First land, then sea. As we know suspect happened.

 

[PruePhillip]

There is however, nothing unique or original on Genesis creation and flood myths, because there are much ancient myths from 3rd millennium Sumer and Egypt.

And what they all have in common, including Genesis,

• is that they don't explain anything about the natural reality,
  
• and is that they are all wrong,
  • scientifically (about the astronomy, about the Earth itself and about life),
  • and historically (in regarding to human history).

You say Genesis that God brought forth life.

For one, birds never predated land animals, and land plants had never predate marine invertebrates.

Plus Genesis never explain the anatomy and physiology for every species of animals or every species of plants.

Evolution, not only explain these, but also what changed in the anatomy for each species of each genera and families.

Genesis is too vague on the details, and calling them as "kinds", EXPLAINS NOTHING! It is no better than Egyptian creation myths or Sumerian/Babylonian myths.

Yeah, true for a lot of this. Find it interesting that the seas brought forth life... and out of the seas came birds.
Birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs come from reptiles. And reptiles come from amphibians. And amphibians come
from the 'lobed fins' fish and these come from true fish.
But the bible is about how to go to heaven, it's not a text book. The first reference point for a viewer in this story
of creation is yourself sitting upon the dark sterile waters of an early earth - not in orbit, for instance.

 

[ppp]

Oh ok. They're not young people who believe this.... ha ha.
A lot of people try to draw conclusions about the physical world from the bible. But the bible doesn't really help.
As Galileo put it, 'The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.'
The invention of the lightning rod was classic - that you could direct lightning astonished a lot of people in an
age of religion. As if lightning was something God sent. I am fine with the idea that God indeed does this, but
through natural processes. Same with life. Says 'God commanded the earth to bring forth life' FIRST, then that
'God commanded the seas to bring forth life.' First land, then sea. As we know suspect happened.

Interesting. I was an old earth creationist when I was a Christian. My position was that natural processes were God's way of accomplishing his goals. It always amuses me when YECs presume that evolution had anything at all to do with my deconversion.

 

[PruePhillip]

Interesting. I was an old earth creationist when I was a Christian. My position was that natural processes were God's way of accomplishing his goals. It always amuses me when YECs presume that evolution had anything at all to do with my deconversion.

The bible is written in a strange way. Note the capture of the ark of the coventant - 1 Samuel has nothing to say about the
attack on Shiloh and the destruction of the altar there. Yet we found that altar. Same with Moses - nothing mentioned about
the turmoil going on all across the Middle East, and the vast movement of peoples and collapse of empires. But sometimes
the bible will mention an event in detail, such as the story of Sodom - which has emerged from archaelogy. But that's rare.

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, true for a lot of this. Find it interesting that the seas brought forth life... and out of the seas came birds.

The thing is, birds didn’t exist at the same time as marine animals.

Marine life, include species of bacteria and archaea have been around for a couple of billions of years before the first invertebrate animals (eg primitive sponges and corals) from the Ediacaran period. In Cambrian period, more complex invertebrates appeared in the fossils records, which included earliest marine arthropods (which included the variety of trilobites), millions of years before the earliest vertebrate animals, the jawed and bony fishes near the end of Cambrian.

Then other fishes began to diversify during the following periods.

The points being the animals of Ediacaran and Cambrian periods predated the earliest land plants, birds won’t until the Mesozoic periods, evolving from certain species of dinosaurs. Marine animals exist over hundreds of millions of years before the first true birds appeared.

The earliest primitive amphibians would come out of water. Some more millions of years before they evolved into reptile-like animals and mammal-like animals flourished on lands, tens of millions years before the archosaurs and dinosaurs started appearing in the Triassic period.

So again, Genesis is wrong. Wrong that birds appearing at the same time as marine life, and wrong about birds appearing before land animals.

 

[PruePhillip]

The thing is, birds didn’t exist at the same time as marine animals.

Marine life, include species of bacteria and archaea have been around for a couple of billions of years before the first invertebrate animals (eg primitive sponges and corals) from the Ediacaran period. In Cambrian period, more complex invertebrates appeared in the fossils records, which included earliest marine arthropods (which included the variety of trilobites), millions of years before the earliest vertebrate animals, the jawed and bony fishes near the end of Cambrian.

Then other fishes began to diversify during the following periods.

The points being the animals of Ediacaran and Cambrian periods predated the earliest land plants, birds won’t until the Mesozoic periods, evolving from certain species of dinosaurs. Marine animals exist over hundreds of millions of years before the first true birds appeared.

The earliest primitive amphibians would come out of water. Some more millions of years before they evolved into reptile-like animals and mammal-like animals flourished on lands, tens of millions years before the archosaurs and dinosaurs started appearing in the Triassic period.

So again, Genesis is wrong. Wrong that birds appearing at the same time as marine life, and wrong about birds appearing before land animals.

It's how Genesis was handed down to us - or, how Genesis was given to the ancient Hebews.
The writing style is unusual, but you can discern what it means, like any other ancient text.
It's like me saying 'Columbus discovered America and it became THE world power. And Cook
disovered Australia...' You could say, 'But wait, that's wrong. Cook discovered Australia AFTER
Columbus, and THEN America became the world's greatest power. It's sematics and symbolism,
but underneath you discern the SEQUENCE is actually correct.