The Evolution of God (Before Genesis 1:1)

Ringo,

quote:

---

For @#$% sake, not another @#$%ing @#$hole who doesn't know what a simile is.

---

I understand this is an impassionate debate. And according to the rules you should provide "distance" between your emotion and your position. Since you violated the rules, you lost. Agree? Can you still keep your cool?Was the writer of Acts 2:1-3 writing a literary piece or was he writing an actual and factual observation? Are figures of speech--simile, metaphor, personification,etc.--USUALLY used in reporting an actual incident, or are these usually used in literary pieces like prose or poetry?

quote:

---

There was a SOUND. It was AS OF a rushing mightly wind. It was like the sound of the tornado in The Wizard of Oz - the SOUND of a wind, not an actual wind in your house when you watch the movie.

---

Granting without admiting that your interpretation is correct. Let me re-state it if I understood it clearly. In effect you are saying that there was a SOUND. How was the SOUND described by the writer? Like a rushing mighty wind. Is my understanding correct?You quoted another scripture:

quote:

---

Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

---

How do you understand this? a) Did the angel of the LORD appear like FIRE? OR b) the angel appeared to Moses in a bush that was burning with FIRE but was not being consumed? Either way, is fire in everyday language not a form of ENERGY, or is it?You said:

quote:

---

The Holy Spirit is described as being like wind and like fire because those were mysterious forces to the ancient Hebrews. The Holy Spirit is supposed to be mysterious. If we understand wind and fire better today, that's all the more reason to not think of the Holy Spirit in those terms.

---

Is it your understanding that to the ancient Hebrews "wind" is not capable of moving things, and that "fire" is not capable of cooking? Or is it your understanding that: 'yes the ancient Hebrews knew that wind can cause motion to certain objects, and yes, fire can cook. But--the big but, perhaps--they couldn't explain yet fully why these forms of energy act the way ( or produce certain results) the way they do?You said:

quote:

---

You really have no clue about the speaking-in-tongues phenomenon, do you? The standard thinking, as I understand it, is that a person has to be willing before the Holy Spirit will speak through him/her. They have already said yes to being used as a puppet.

---

Again, clue or no clue is of no moment. What is important is what the scriptures say, and what is reasonable. Have you considered the possibility that for a person to be willing ( to give his consent) he has to use his intelligence? After all, those disciples could have said no. For God to use his power ( the holy spirit) to make puppet of persons, is this not a violation of his respect for their free will? Have you considered that?You said:

quote:

---

The trouble is that you're not reading the page at all. You haven't looked above the footnotes. When you read the Bible, you have to look at the actual text, not just sneak a peek at the answers in the back of the book.

---

I read the page, I just don't understand it the way you WANT me to understand it. But, have you looked at your thesaurus? Is not the word "Power" synonymous to "force" or "energy"? Edited by Great J, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The fact is that it is a simile.

---

That is your assertion.

quote:

---

Do you know of a single translation that doesn't translate it as a simile?

---

I think most bible translators would want to literally translate the bible to capture the original text.

quote:

---

In effect you are saying that there was a SOUND. How was the SOUND described by the writer? Like a rushing mighty wind. Is my understanding correct?

​

You answered: "That much is blindingly obvious. The table lamp understands that much. The potted plant in the corner understands that much."

---

You just prove my point. Whether it was wind or sound doesn't matter anymore. Sound is energy. Wind is energy. And, remember my thesis: spirit=power=energy.

quote:

---

It was obviously like fire only in the sense that it looked like fire. It was not fire because it didn't behave like fire - it didn't consume fuel.

---

Kindly read again that account. And let me refresh your understanding. That acccount says that Moses saw a bush that was being burned by fire. However, when he took a closer look, why the bush wasn't burning at all! )Is this how you also understood that passage?

quote:

---

Again, we're not talking about the everyday use of the words. We're talking about how they were used in the Bible. The wind in Acts didn't move anything and the fire didn't cook the disciples. The fire that Moses saw didn't cook the bush.

---

I seem to have a problem understanding your answer. Let me rephrase and see which one captures your thoughts. (1) Is it your understanding that there is ALWAYS a conflict between how words are used by bible writers, and how we understand these words today (2) There is no conflict at all, (3) There are some conflicts like the case in point--the words "fire" and "wind". If 3 is your choice, how would their and our understanding differ?

quote:

---

Of course I've considered that. Why do you think I brought up the story of Balaam's ass? The phenomenon was the same, but you can't attribute the same intelligence to the ass. Therefore, intelligence is not a factor.

---

Good for you to have considered that. The disciples gave their consent--which means they used their intelligence-- to be used as spokesperson of God. The ass obviously did not. How is it that you are saying that intelligence was not a factor?

quote:

---

For God to use his power ( the holy spirit) to make puppet of persons, is this not a violation of his respect for their free will? have you considered that ?

---

your answer:

quote:

---

Of course I have. This isn't something I'm making up as I go along. It's the belief of people who believe in tongues. Please do some research on the subject and stop asking off-topic questions about it.

---

I did not say that you were making things up. Have I? Again, the belief of people who believe in tongues doesn't matter. It is what was written that matters.

quote:

---

I don't give a flying @#$% how you understand it or if you understand it. When I break the rules, you'll see a little "suspended" notice by my name.

---

Can't we have a little respect for the rules, please?

quote:

---

No. That's the way the translators translated it. They considered it a simile. Argue with them.

---

I haven't read a bible translator say that Act 2:1-3 was a simile. However, I've heard a lot of misguided ones say this or that passage is a simile, this or that is literal all to suit their belief. Let the scriptures speak for itself. I will not argue with them, there writings are clear. However, I'll turn around and ask: why don't you argue with the translators of Gen 1:1, BTE, when they wrote that spirit = power?

quote:

---

No. Sound is not energy in the minds of the Bible writers. If you think it is, show us examples in the Bible where sound is supposed to have "power".

---

We can't read the minds of the bible writers. However, the way that the event--that powerful strong sound--was described gives honest readers the unmistakable understanding that there was a lot of energy generated in that event. Keep in mind the formula. spirit=power=energy.

quote:

---

No. They gave their consent for God to do whatever He wanted. They didn't use their intelligence, they gave it up, temporarily. They willingly became as unintelligent as an ass - or a burning bush - so that God could speak through them. No intelligence required.

---

Again that was your misguided interpretation. The more reasonable one is this: their minds or intelligence were vastly improved by the power of God ( the holy spirit) to speak foreign tongues. To say that the holy spirit just moved their jaws up and down and their tongues to swirl and spit out foreign language is a bit of an idiotic stretch.Again, even if that was so, to move their jaws up and down, swirl their tongue and spit out foreign language--as in a puppet--required energy. Didn't it? Which goes back to the main point, spirit=power=energy.

quote:

---

Why not drop the arrogant attitude and read what other people think?

---

Were you addressing yourself? That, my friend is a figure of speech. Go figure it out.

Goodbye Ringo,
I find it fruitless to discuss with a hot head. So I choose not to reply to your points anymore, but to appeal to the reader to consider these.
1. Please study carefully the proposition that God--being NOT made of flesh and blood--is spirit.
2. The Bible says that spirit = power = energy.
3. In my opening post, I proposed two (2) theories to try to understand how God came about. One theory, is that being energy he has no beginning. Another is he EVOLVED--and I likened his evolution to that of a blackhole, only more complicated. "It" EVOLVED into a "HE"--having consciousness, a will of his own, and used His energies ( Power in the language of the bible) to create things. See opening post for more details.4. I cited certain Biblical passages that proves spirit=power=energy.
Among these are:
Genesis 1:1 where BTE specifically says that spirit = powerActs 2:1-3 . Which mentions an awesome Sound as in the rush of a mighty wind; or alternatively a mighty wind producing an awesome sound. Whether Sound or Wind doesn't matter. They are proof that spirit--the holy spirit of God--is energy.Ex 3:2, brought up by Ringo, the account of the burning bush that Moses saw but was not being consumed by fire. Not only did Moses see the phenomena but he heard a voice, a sound from God. Some have explained the phenomena of the burning bush as St. Elmo's fire. But, even so St. Elmos' fire is a form of energy. The sound that Moses (a.k.a Ringo) heard is a form of energy.There are other phenomenon mentioned in the Bible--the splitting of the Red Sea, the strength given to Samson--that supports my theory (guess, or hypothesis) that spirit = energy. But God's energy (body if you will) is so much more complicated than the "conventional" ones. In the language of the Bible--to which my good friend Ringo probably agree--is that God's spirit [or energy] is mysterious.Some of you questioned and some may question that being energy then God is measurable. My answer is if you can measure the energy that is in blackholes, then probably we can just Begin to measure the energy of God since he is--as stated in my proposition--more complex than black holes. At present, as I understand it, not all energies are measurable (e.g St.Elmo's fire, the ones inside or within the gravitational pull of black-holes ). But, they can be OBSERVABLE.And if you happen to agree, what then? Then you will begin to appreciate more fully the complex and sytematic things around us. In my humble opinion, Science should not focus all its resources in PROVING or DISPROVING the existence of God. In my opinion, question like how did life begin, even if answered would be less fruitful than this question: HOW and WHY DID THE CREATOR MAKE THESE THINGS?I choose not to elaborate more for fearing to encounter another Ringo who does not abide by the rules. I shall propose to Admin to close this topic and deal with my good friend Ringo.Edited by Great J, : No reason given.