Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution of God (Before Genesis 1:1)
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 33 of 73 (445138)
01-01-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
01-01-2008 9:47 AM


quote:
You made it exclusive when you said God used the forces.
I believe I said that God is made up of all sorts of energy AND he can use these forces anyway he likes it.
quote:
If we can explain the various forces without resorting to God then there is no need for inserting God...no blinders here.
I am not a scientist, but I believe that science can explain these forces taking them one force at a time. It has not come up yet with an explanation of: 'what if these forces were combined together and intead of destroying its other, instead of just holding up these forces ( like the black holes) --it would EVOLVE into something that has intelligence, can act on its own'?
If scientist won't consider this possibility, then you have your blinders.
quote:
Yes, the key words are "that can not be explained yet" and yes it is possible "that the nature of God could later on be explained by science", however, if that is the case then God is not supernatural but instead just another thing like slime and mud.
I believe that your premise is correct, but your conclusion is degrading both to men and God. Why not: If this is the case then God has allowed himself to be revealed to men more fully, and men have greatly improved their intelligence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 9:47 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 10:23 AM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 35 of 73 (445181)
01-01-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nwr
01-01-2008 10:09 AM


quote:
I don't try to personify energy.
We can always try, can't we? Think about God as power according to Gen 1:1, Bible in Today's English, 1966 (?) Catholic Edition (BTE) Now consider also Isaiah 40:26, BTE, which says, "WHO [as in person] CREATED [an act of a person] the stars you see? ... His power is so great--no one of them is ever missing." In short these passages, at least in my understanding, says that God is a person--not made of flesh and blood--made up of energy and forces, AND has the capacity to use these forces any way he chooses.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be preachy. I just wanted you to have a mental picture of what God is made up as a person,and his power to use these forces. In our physical world, you and I can use our hairs for example to make a useful wig!
quote:
That's a big change from what you originally stated, and it avoids the problem I pointed out.
I didn't see a big change. But, anyways even if I did, we can always change , can't we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 10:09 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 1:25 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 37 of 73 (445189)
01-01-2008 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
01-01-2008 10:23 AM


quote:
That is saying God uses God. Sorry but that is a contentfree statement. It has no information in it.
If you for example a good doctor--being made of flesh and blood--uses PART of your flesh to say transplant it to your kid who is sick, is it saying you are using you? Or, is it like using PART of your flesh to heal your child? Is there no information in it?
quote:
What ifs are fun when you are a kid.
Indeed, sometimes kids asks "what ifs" that at first seem absurd but later on makes sense and used by adults to solve a problem. Agree?
quote:
Of course it is degrading to God, but it is YOUR premise. You are the one who suggested "that the nature of God could later on be explained by science." Them's your exact words son. What I posted is the logical conclusion of what you proposed. If "the nature of God could later on be explained by science" then God is nothing but another natural object, like slime or mold.
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I did not say that if the nature of God could later on be explained by science, then "it would be degrading to God" . What I suggested was for you to change your conclusion to: 'then God allowed himself to be more fully revealed to man, and /or man's intelligence has improved.'
Sorry, but I seem to sense something wrong in your views. It appears to me that everytime science discovers something then it "degrades" that discovery to something like mud and slime? Correct me if I was wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 10:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 1:39 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 39 of 73 (445298)
01-01-2008 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
01-01-2008 1:39 PM


Jar,
Thanks for giving your thoughts on this post. But, I hope I won't offend you with this question:
Do you hate God, or the possibility that he will reveal more of himself to mankind through science ?
kind regards,
Great J

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 1:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 6:58 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 40 of 73 (445302)
01-01-2008 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nwr
01-01-2008 1:25 PM


quote:
But that's a different meaning of "power", not related to the scientific meaning, and not related to energy. It is a bit more akin to political power, roughly the ability to command and have those commands carried out.
Is the use of "power" in Gen 1:1, BTE, to start creation akin to political power? Or is it more akin to use of an awesome energy force?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 1:25 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 7:56 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 43 of 73 (445454)
01-02-2008 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
01-01-2008 6:58 PM


Re: the avatar
quote:
I bet even Patrick would understand my avatar.
Careful with that. I heard one named his dog according to that name. Next morning the dog was found dead. He then got a puppy and named it just the same. Next morning the man was found dead beside the puppy. Superstition ? May be. Coincidence? May be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 01-01-2008 6:58 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 01-02-2008 2:32 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 44 of 73 (445455)
01-02-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nwr
01-01-2008 7:56 PM


quote:
It isn't at all like an awesome energy force.
BTW, Gen 1:1, BTE, was cross-referred to Act 2:1-4 where it mentioned that the house was filled by a strong wind and the occupants were filled (annointed) with the holy spirit in the form of tongues of fire. That appears to me to be awesome energy force.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 7:56 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 01-02-2008 3:01 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 47 of 73 (445465)
01-02-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
01-02-2008 2:32 PM


Re: the avatar
quote:
And that is related to the topic in what way? The point is, if you knew what my avatar was you would know I do not hate God.
Just kidding. My turn to laugh :=)
quote:
That is the only possible conclusion from your assertions.
Let me try a syllogism.
P1: One who is natural can not know one who is super-natural unless the latter choose to reveal himself to the former.
P2: Super-natural being choose to reveal himself to natural being through science.
Conclusion: Therefore, natural being can know super-natural being through science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 01-02-2008 2:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 01-02-2008 3:07 PM NOT JULIUS has not replied
 Message 49 by sidelined, posted 01-02-2008 3:09 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 50 of 73 (445469)
01-02-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nwr
01-02-2008 3:01 PM


quote:
If there had been instruments present to measure energy, the chances are that those instruments would not have registered anything at all.
Too bad the anemometer was not yet invented at that time. But what about the witnesses who had opposing views of the power given to them? If you will recall, the disciples were heckled as drunk with wine. On the other hand, 120 experienced that power. No one disputed though that strong gust of wind (the manifestation of the spirit, the energy force) that filled the house.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 01-02-2008 3:01 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by sidelined, posted 01-02-2008 3:16 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 52 of 73 (445471)
01-02-2008 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by sidelined
01-02-2008 3:09 PM


Re: forget J's avatar
Sidelined,
quote:
The only problem arising is that the natural being cannot know that the other is actually supernatural if the only way the supernatural can communicate is through the natural.
I don't quite get your point. Can you explain further? May be my brain went on sleep mode after looking at Jar's avatar. :=)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by sidelined, posted 01-02-2008 3:09 PM sidelined has not replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 53 of 73 (445482)
01-02-2008 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by sidelined
01-02-2008 3:16 PM


quote:
Well we have developed new understanding for the cause of wind in recent centuries but perhaps you have been unable to keep up.
I believe the account in Acts 2:1-13 (I'm digging into my sandwich no bible on hand ) says that a strong wind came from heaven and filled the house, AND tounges of fire descended on each of the disciples. So, when the sound ( of that strong wind)occured the multitude came together AND were bewildered because they each heard their own language being spoken by the disciples. Unable, to explain the phenomenon some accused them of being drunk.
The point?
a) holy spirit is energy--all sorts of energy, from fire, from wind, etc. Not only ordinary energy but one that can impart intelligence as in ability to instanteously speak foreign tounges.
b) God is spirit or energy--not flesh and blood. He is not only made up energy ( a.k.a. spirit) but he can use that energy anyway he wants.
c) that event was witnessed by opposing parties, and not one of them disputed the phenomena.
d)unable to explain the whole phenomena, one party accused the other of being drunk.
Now, do they also have instruments that measure almost simultaneously the occurence of strong wind, AND the tounges of fire, AND the ability to instantaneously speak foreign language?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by sidelined, posted 01-02-2008 3:16 PM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 01-02-2008 6:57 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 55 of 73 (445534)
01-02-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by ringo
01-02-2008 6:57 PM


Hi Ringo,
I follow this rule in interpretation: "plain words, plain meaning, unless resulting interpretation results in absurdity or unreasonableness"
you said:
quote:
There was no wind. It was a sound LIKE (capitalization mine) wind.
However the passage you quoted says,
quote:
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
I think the plain meaning--no need of reconstruction--is there was a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind and it filled all the house. Sounds an awesome energy force to me.
You said:
quote:
Much as you have tried to drag the Holy Spirit down to the level of measurable energy
That is how you understood my statements. But, what I said was spirit=energy. I cited Genesis 1:1,Isaiah 40:26, Acts 2:1-13 BTE, as my source. I never said measurable. Did I?
you said:
quote:
Are you familiar with the speaking-in-tongues phenomenon at all?
My familiarity is of no value. What is important is what the account said. I guess it said that when the holy spirit--that powerful energy /force--from God descended upon the disciples, they talked and their listeners were able to discern that they ( the disciples) were talking in their ( the listeners') tongues or langguage. Plain meaning, right ?
you said:
quote:
Those two statements are contradictory. The ones who suspected drunkenness certainly were disputing the "phenomenon"
I believe there was no contradiction. Here is why.
1. Both parties did not dispute the OCCURENCE of the phenomena of the strong wind and the sudden ability of the disciples to speak foreign tongues.
2. What they could not explain /or agree was the CAUSE(s) of these phenomena.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Great J, : No reason given.
Edited by Great J, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by ringo, posted 01-02-2008 6:57 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 01-02-2008 9:02 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 57 of 73 (445704)
01-03-2008 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by ringo
01-02-2008 9:02 PM


quote:
Awesome, probably, but an "energy force", no. Both force and energy (not the same, by the way) can be detected and measured. That would make it far less awesome. There is nothing in the text to suggest that it there was any detectable "energy". You're making that part up
Yes, or no please. If a non-moving thing like a house, a chair, etc, moves was there a force or energy applied or none? Follow up question: why did the writer write rushing mighty wind and filled the house if there was no movement in that house at all?
quote:
Nothing in Genesis 1:1-2 backs you up:Neither does Isaiah:Neither does Acts, as I have already shown.
Perhaps you did not check my original post. My reference on Genesis 1:1-2 was BTE where it is specifically mentioned that spirit of God=Power of God. BTW, the Hebrew word "Ruach" is translated "spirit" in English. And Bible translators agree that spirit = power. Power = energy force. Of course, you can not find the word "energy" in these bible passages because remember it was written long time ago, when the word "energy" was not yet known.If the bible writer(s) would have used "energy" the reader would say DUH? So, they had to use language that was understandable to them at that time: power=energy.
As regards Acts 2:1-3, it was just a fulfillment of Jesus command to his disciples, after he was resurrected. He said 'go to the city (Jerusalem) and wait for the POWER on high to be given to you'. ( Luke 24:49, BTE).
As regards, Isaiah 40:26, your quoted text mentions "his might", "he is strong in POWER". Write that as 'he has strong ENERGY, and you will have rabid bible critics howling: 'see Isaiah was written in the 40's ! or about the time the word "energy" came to being.
Oh by the way, do the stars release power ( energy) or not? If yes, where did this come from according to Isaiah 40:26?
quote:
The reason I asked was because you claimed that there was some kind of "intelligence" imparted. That's wrong. Speaking in tongues, as in Acts, is more like the Holy Spirit using a person as a puppet. There's no intelligence involved.
Are you saying that speaking in foreign tongue does not require intelligence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 01-02-2008 9:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 1:53 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 60 of 73 (445716)
01-03-2008 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by ringo
01-03-2008 1:53 PM


Ringo,
quote:
If an object moves, we look for a natural force.
A FORCE nonetheless.
quote:
There is simply nothing in the text to suggest that there was any movement in the house.
A rushing mighty wind that filled the house, and no movement at all. Can you believe that?
quote:
Second, a footnote is just somebody's opinion. It has no bearing on the meaning of the text. Third, it has already been explained to you that the "power of God" doesn't mean power in the sense that it's used in physics.You haven't shown that. You've shown the footnote-opinion of one translator and you've misunderstood what "power" means in the literary sense as opposed to what "power" means in the scientific sense.
Or, the footnote is an aid to undertanding the particular word. And, that somebody's opinion by the way, is just from the masters of their own field--the bible scholars/ translators. If you use the theasaurus on your word document, and type the word "POWER" it will give you several synonyms among which are: "FORCE", and "ENERGY". The Bible writers, by the way, did not study physics. They observed that in their physical world if something moves it must have been caused by Power. And, the word "power" means "ENERGY" or "FORCE" in our modern language. Again, check a respectable thesaurus.
quote:
Yes. That's the whole point. It's the Holy Spirit speaking, not the ventriloquist's dummy.Remember Balaam's ass?
I thought man has free will, the right to say yes or no. And, I really thought that man's intelligence is different from an ass. If you don't agree, then we'll never be on the same page.
Edited by Great J, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 1:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 4:04 PM NOT JULIUS has replied

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 4474 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 61 of 73 (445718)
01-03-2008 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by jar
01-03-2008 1:59 PM


Re: Great winds.
Jar,
quote:
Great winds do small flames blow out, unless it is great winds caused by too many baked beans in which case small flames can create great fire balls when encountering said winds.
If we are on the same page, I heard that scientists are tapping on this as alternative form of ENERGY that could be used to cook food. :=) :=). How do you guys paste an emoticon on this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by jar, posted 01-03-2008 1:59 PM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024