A discussion with tack

[Zenith]

@tackattack:

sorry for the delay. I have been busy with other stuff, and also lost my enthusiasm for discussions & debates.

Here is my response to your statements:

1) Several others have already answered this point. From the human perspective within this universe, there is no power God can not exert to accomplish what can be accomplished within this universe. Whether outside this universe he is the lesser power among other God's is irrelevant as to us he is the creator and originator and has sufficient power to accomplish anything logically possible within this universe.

Regarding "this universe" stuff: what if there is no other universe? Perhaps it is illogical (and I believe it is illogical to believe) that there are more than one universe. I say that "perhaps it is illogical" because our knowledge is limited - to know for sure what is illogical and what is not - and because all this stuff with multiple universes and teleportation in time have been born out of our imagination only - and may end there. After all, thousands of years ago people believed that if they build something as high as to reach the sky, they would reach the god(s), but now that we have the technology to build something that high, we know that it is logically impossible. We can indeed imagine and make movies with teleportation in time and multiple universes, but as with the teleportation in time, multiple universes may be logically impossible.

2) No that is what I meant. So you would have to be part of the empowered group to believe or just a witness of it?

Part of the empowered group. It's because:
a) if I see someone else doing such things, I would say to myself that it is a trick or something, that it isn't real. But if I did it myself, I would know that it is indeed real.
b) as I said, such a thing must happen in a group of people, because otherwise I would say to myself that I've lost my sanity.

And yeah, as you might have realized, I don't expect such a thing to ever happen. After all, if I were Zeus, there would be no reason I would do such things for people (i.e. to appear there and give them powers and stuff like that).

2a) Actually without pulling out my lexicon I'm fairly certain that I would fine 2 thes. an eternal (duration) consequence (punishment/ restitution/ payment/ ruin). The finality of absolute destruction wouldn't be an eternal (won't change over time) consequence (is punishment for crime)?

I'm trying to understand what you said... but you weren't too clear. You mean that the destruction would have an eternal consequence (i.e. not living afterwards for an eternity to come)?

Anyway, please tell me:

And how do you explain Mark 9.43-44 and Matthew 25.41,46; 13.40-42, Revelation 14.9-11, 20.10?

3)The Church of God is a reference to body of believers with Jesus at their head referencing 1 Corinthians 12:12-26; Ephesians 1:18-23; Colossians 1:17-20

Given that fact, please clarify to me these statements of yours:

While God speaking directly is the exception, not the rule, it would still have to be weighed against the consciousness and in agreeance within the Church

I lean on the only church I know, the church of experience and scripture.

Because I can't understand. For instance "I lean on ... the body of christians of experience and scripture."??
And as the first statement, you mean that you rely on the things that have been accepted as "truth" by the majority of christians? Or what should this "agreeance within the Church" mean?

3a)first: is there a biblical support for God & Satan speaking in our minds? Psalm 85:8; Jeremiah 7:23-24 both talk about hearing God's words.

There are some problems both with Psalm 85.9 & Jeremiah 7.23-24:
first, in translations such as NIV we have "I will listen to what God the LORD says;" (not "hear") - and for good reason, because in hebrew that word means either to hear or to listen to (the latter, in the meaning of "to obey"). For instance, this word "hear"/"listen - in the meaning of obeyed" in Psalm 85.9 is found in Gen 14:14 as "heard": "And when Abram heard that ...". As for "obeyed", that same hebrew word ("to hear") is translated in KJV as "obeyed" in verses such as Gen 22.18, Gen 22.7 and very many other.

second off, even if one insisted that this word should be translated as "heard" and not "listened" (the latter rather meaning - in the context of Psalm 85 as many other instances - to put your heart to obey to what had been said long time ago & written down), there is no hint in Psalm 85 that God speaks things in people's minds.

Also, you didn't provide any verse to mean or suggest that Satan is speaking in our minds.

then, how would you determine if it was actual or illusory communication? Since it is strictly internal... there would be no valid way of determining that objectively. However if I wasn't having illusions, hallucinations or delusions prior and didn't have them after and was medically fine it wwould either be e fluke or actually perceived.

I'm not sure I understood what you said. I meant, how would you determine that it was God speaking and that they were not simply your own thoughts in your head? Or you hear literal voice, clear as a normal voice, talking to you??

then, how exactly would you determine its origins? The Bible gives tons of scriptures on this. There are a lot of determiner, but basically to test it against what the Bible says, what interpret it with your own Holy Spirit, and verify it with your personal morality (listen to the laws on your heart). It also doesn't hurt to look for outside verification from trusted peers.

OK, I'll give you a phrase, let's imagine that 'someone' tells me that in my mind: "Go and buy a bread." - should I understand this as from God or from myself? or other example: I see a poor man that needs food, I have food and because I pity him, I give him food (having the thought in my head "give him some food.") - should I understand this as from God of from myself? You may give some verses in the Bible, if you wish - and indeed can - to determine which of them really is.

As about "what interpret it with your own Holy Spirit" - I thought that the Holy Spirit is only one (i.e. you seem to say that X has a Holy Spirit while Y has another Holy Spirit - I actually thought that both X and Y should have the same Holy Spirit). Then the question is, how do you access 'your' Holy Spirit to ask Him about that thought? And how does 'your' Holy Spirit answer to you regarding that thought in your mind?

"verify it with your personal morality" - that's... outstanding: so the Bible may say that it is from God, the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) may tell you that it is from God, but after these, that thought both have agreed upon can ask you to do an immoral thing. This means that both the Bible and the Holy Spirit taught you to do an immoral thing. Awww.

3b)I'm sure there are plenty of instances in the Bible of God commanding believers to kill. If it was truly God telling them to and not justified then God would be not righteous, and therefore immoral. If you state a case here I'll rebut it.

As I said,

I would only answer if we have a specific case we're talking about.

I know that in the Bible God told the jews to go and conquer the land of Canaan. And in other cases when they conquered something, I guess there was the saying afterwards - i.e. when they saw that they had conquered the city - "God has given the city in our hands".

And... I think there is a grammar error or something in this phrase - "If it was truly God telling them to and not justified then God would be not righteous, and therefore immoral" - reason why I cannot understand very well what you meant.

4) & 5) Where did they go?

I answered to 5).
As about 4), I don't have what to say, I mean:

I just can’t see him caring too much about a corruptible useless body to necessarily need to remove it molecularly, especially since it is part of a natural cycle.

You "just can't see him caring too much ..." . I see a debate over "would God destroy for good, or only the body as a whole?" too... pointless.

5a)I am not saying that Sheol is the lake of fire we call hell. The opposite in fact.

Do you say, therefore, that "hell is what we call the lake of fire which is Sheol"? Please be more specific/clear.
Also, I expected an answer to:

With this occasion, how do you understand Luke 16.22-23? (notice that the judgment day had not arrived there yet: there were his relatives on earth).

5b) Ok I'd say the modern heaven then is the Spiritual realm where God reigns (if that makes the seated analogy any clearer). I believe the verse you're looking for is Luke 18:26-30. John 14 is also a good chapter on heaven.

Neither Luke 18.26-30 nor John 14 does contain the word "heaven" (as my question was "perhaps you can find me a place in the Bible where "heaven" (alone) refers to the place where 'good' people go after they die" - if you didn't mean to answer to this, then I don't know what you referred to).

5c) see 5a

I would have enjoyed if you had been more specific...

6) where did it go?

what?? I answered 6) back then.

6a)Psalms 25:8 Good and upright is the LORD: therefore will he teach sinners in the way.
Nahum 1:7 The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that trust in him.
Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Sorry tack, but from these verses you didn't prove that

God's "goodness" is His "nature" (which seems to confine Him to be in a certain way or something).

The verses simply say how God is - not why God is so.
One can simply assume that God chose to be "good" long before He created anything & anyone, and therefore, because He can be as He decided to be, then He is so.

7) If you can't even imagine an immaterial essence, then there's really not much fruit going to come of that tree.

Sorry, I really cannot make an image of an immaterial essence - so therefore, "immaterial essence" is unimaginable to me.
I also can't think of immaterial essence in terms of properties, because I don't have any idea what properties it could/should have.
So "immaterial essence" doesn't sound any more concrete than "an unspecific something that tackattack imagines".