A discussion with tack

[Zenith]

1) I’m not saying there is another universe, but by default an originating cause (ie. Creator God) existing prior to the creation of this universe would not be in this universe. I’m not saying he exists in another universe, I’m just saying he exists outside of this one. Whether that’s in nothingness or another universe is all irrelevant. My only point on this was omnipotent = all necessary power to affect anything logically within this universe.

Know that "omnipotent = all necessary power to affect anything logically within this universe" sounds very weird to me. And I'm not going to debate with you now what the universe actually is, etc. for me, it's just endless space... it could have meant and it could mean to some people the totality of objects within it, i.e. planets, stars, gases, etc.

I also can't imagine nothingness, sorry. The creation of the "heavens and earth" may simply mean the creation of the celestial bodies, along with the earth. I also doubt that the 5000+ years ago people were having this modern view on "space" and "time" we have now, to talk about the creation of space & time.

2) So you admit that your expectations for the threshold for believability are unrealistic?

I know that it is. But the problem is that logically, there cannot be other evidence (well, unless you're very credulous or you're being manipulated).

Consider this: you're a christian. Why do you not believe that the true gods are actually the ancient greek ones? I'll tell you, the actual answer is: because you're already a christian. In other words, you have already chosen your allegiance. Now, even if ancient religious manuscripts of the ancient greek gods had been found and had been historically accurate and with sound moral teachings, etc. and were attributed (by the authors of the manuscripts) to Poseidon, Zeus, Athens and other ancient greek gods, you would not change your faith. You would rather try to find another explanation, an explanation in which they are not the true gods and yours is the true God. That's how it happens with atheists and people of other religious views too: they already don't believe in the Christian God, so there will always be other possible explanations to everything, and one will never know beyond doubt that a thing X is true, because even if it was, there will be thousands of people finding evidence or reasons to the contrary. And so, what you come to believe is what you wanted to believe, anyway.

And though most either don't admit it, or simply didn't think thoroughly about the subject, the fact is that the only way anyone can really know, beyond doubt, that a particular God or some gods do indeed exist, is if something - like that above I said - happens.

2a) Yes I mean that the destruction is an eternal consequence (i.e. not living afterwards for an eternity to come)?
Mark 9.43-44 and Matthew 25.41, Revelation 14.9-11- all talk about the flames or the smoke going on forever, not the torment or the soul’s existence

First off, know that it's very illogical to have an eternal fire that burns nothing. If the Sheol is destroyed after its purpose had come to an end, I don't see why the fire in which people used to burn must go on. As about the "worm" - know that there can be no worm without a body (the reference in Mark 9.44 is 'inspired' from Isaiah 66.24). As about Rev 14.9-11, saying that "And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." makes a clear suggestion that people would suffer without pause for an eternity. I don't understand how you see this as a suffering unto an end (or a destruction instead of suffering).

Revelation 20:10 is about Satan and yes he is and will be tormented forever, but angels never were human and it’s unknown (and unlikely) if they have a soul.

Now we get to other things... what do you understand of "soul"?? For me, the word "soul"/"spirit" means something that is one's own existence (as a living thing, in contradistinction with an object like a rock). So it sounds quite odd to me to say that they don't have/they are not, spirits.

Anyway, logically, if it is fit for angels to suffer an eternity in hell, then why wouldn't it be fit for human beings to also suffer an eternity in hell? Why are the human beings be so special??

Matthew 25:46 the translations I read are all “eternal punishment” contrasting with “eternal life” and I addressed in the beginning that destruction is an eternal punishment

This same thing seems to be explained in Romans 2.7-9 - and the eternal punishment seems to be sufferings, not a destroying of the body. And Matthew 25.41 strongly suggests that human beings would suffer the same as the fallen angels.

Also, consider that "eternal life" is being used symbolically in the gospels (consider for instance John 17:3)

3)The Church of God as accepted by general Christendom and I feel is the most Biblically supported stance is the sum of believers that accept Christ as their Savior and believe him to be the only way to salvation. Is that what I wasn’t clear on?

You still haven't been specific. When you're in doubt of something... you go ask a catholic priest or what? Or what exactly is this church of God you lean on when you're not sure about something?

as a reminder, that issue was:

3- 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. In few if any of the many references in the Bible is confirmation accomplished. It's far more likely that it happens less then even the Bible attributes it and is probably typically of a selfish or negative desire rather than truly God's will. It is up to the individual to confirm that it's God speaking and not the self, or Satan.

3a)here are 191 references I’m sure some of which apply to Satan as well.

Then why don't you point to me one?
Anyway, I still believe that "hear" thing as I stated in the previous post. And that strong you gave me a strong in greek New Testament, not hebrew Old Testament.
And... I don't know if you wanted to contradict me with the link above, or simply ask me to search for Satan there.

Also, 1 Sam 15.1-3 with 15.19: Saul heard NO VOICE (i.e. a literal voice) of God. By 15.19 it is simply stated that Saul did not obey God's commandment. Look into those verses and see that Saul heard NO VOICE. And also know that "obey X"/"obey the voice of X" is literally translated from hebrew as "hear in/to the voice of X". That's why you have the strong H8085 in this verse (i.e. in 1 Sam 15.19). In the site you provided, you can find that strong here.

God's word will never contradict Scripture, will never tempt you to do wrong, rarely the loudest one.

The big problem with this is that the thoughts you hear, if they are from your own mind, then they can appear as "good" to you, and your own misunderstanding of certain verses in the bible to make you believe that it accords with the bible (in other words, it is easy to find justifications by certain verses in the bible).
As about the loud thoughts (i.e. hearing words shouting in your mind)... it sounds scary. I think they are the result of indoctrination, and that they cannot happen when you're in a calm, happy state of mind, and that it's the result of the shouting of the people that indoctrinated you with those particular words.

The results of your actions upon that voice we call the “spiritual fruits” are a sign that you’re heeding the right voice and that it’s God’s.

I'm curios if you can find ONE place in the bible in which "spiritual fruits" to be "the results of your actions upon that voice". I say that, because I don't know any.

“Or you hear literal voice, clear as a normal voice, talking to you??” If you were talking to me I would determine you weren’t me because you’d be saying things I wasn’t intending on saying. You’d have knowledge and language outside of mine. If my senses are reliable; that it’s from an external source.
In your example if you perceive it from “someone” else then it’s not from you. It could be from another personality if you’re schizophrenic or an external source. How you determine what the source is would be what I was curious about.

I wasn't saying that people may telepathically communicate with you. I only meant, if you can distinguish from "normal thoughts" and this "voice".
I'd say that all is from my own head.

“You may give some verses in the Bible, if you wish - and indeed can - to determine which of them really is.” Psalm 119:66, Philippians 1:9, Proverbs 15:14 for a few

I don't see how you found in those verses an answer to

'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?

3b) I think you are referring to the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15. This argument always boils down to the difference between murder and justified killing (ie. punishment for a crime/sin). If God truly told them to kill and it wasn’t justified then God would be not righteous (as it would be murder), and therefore immoral

I can likewise say that any murder you have a justification for is actually a killing.

5a) No, Sheol is not the lake of fire most consider hell.
Luke 16.22-23 says Hades or place of the dead... also not the lake of fire people consider hell. It is the NT or Greek version of Sheol. You’ll see from Revelation 20:1-6 that it would be completely illogical for death and hell (if it were what Hades meant) were thrown into the lake of fire ( what everyone sees as hell). The chiliastic view of Luke is that it is from Sheol or a “judgment waiting room” if you will, where some suffer some don’t prior to judgement. I personally feel the correct doctrine is that when the Bible speaks about Jesus conquering death (by his ressurection), that he closed the doors to Sheol until the judgement day.

OK, we finally came to a resolution, i.e. what Sheol is.
now, you personally feel that Jesus "closed the doors to Sheol until the judgement day." - do you have a biblical basis for this?
Anyway, if Sheol is a "judgment waiting room", then I don't see why it should be 'locked' prior to the judgment.

5b) here are 653 references to heaven. it’s meant in several ways but the only relevant way is the third heaven or the Kingdom of Heaven/God. Hebrews 9:15 and 1 Peter1:4 talk about who can inherit the kingdom. It is also referred to as Abraham’s bosom.

I forgot what we were debating here...
If it was if "heaven" means "the kingdom of heaven"... I heard once a theory, that the hebrew word for "heavens" (which, in hebrew, is always in plural form) is in plural because there are 'three heavens', namely a) the sky; b) the universe; c) the spiritual realm. So that makes perfect sense to say that Paul went to the 3rd heaven (which is, the spiritual realm).

I don’t believe Heaven is a place people automatically go immediately after they die.

Then where do they go if Sheol is locked??

6a) so you want me to give you a list of verses why God is good? That would be a really long one. Is that really necessary? Also “good” is very subjective as we define it, perhaps define it for us.

The point with "why" was... whether it is because of His nature or not. So if you can find in the bible that God is good "because of His nature" instead of "because He wants to be so", then please, give me some verses.

---

Yep, when people in the bronze age wrote that all things were possible to god, they meant all things logically possible..........they couldn't have possibly meant exactly what they said.

About this fact that "they always meant something else than they said"... it's so funny!! but nevertheless, everyone seem to claim it.
How I see things: the biggest problem is that we do not know the culture of the people X of 5000+ years ago and their thought. They certainly did not see things as we see them. They most surely didn't think in terms of "creation of space & time", or portals in time & space, etc. and many other stuff. Plus that they had their own sayings & metaphors that were not taken literally by them (whereas by us, they usually are). And the biggest problem here is that we judge them in terms of our century, not in terms of their century. Words mean what people use(d) them for. For instance, I'm not sure how people 5000+ years ago thought about the "possible" and "impossible" issue. One thing I know is that they weren't thinking in absolutism terms (as "all grass was destroyed" did not mean 100.00% of it; "for ever" could have meant "an extremely long period of time", etc.)

Also, interesting thing... in english we say "can you swim?" whereas in my language we say "do you know to swim?" In my language, to say "can you swim?" sounds as weird as it sounds in english to say "do you know to swim?". In english "to can" means (at least in this context) "if you may do it" - and therefore, a man who could not have swimmed (it was impossible to him), after learning how to swim, he does something impossible to him - he swims (impossible, because he could not swim). In my language, "to can" goes in the capability field (at least in this context): any man is capable of swimming - he only needs to learn how to exert this capability of his. So, which of them really is? What do you say about a guy who didn't learn to swim: CAN he swim or not? Which is the correct way to say? Also... do we have a "correct" way?

By the way... regarding "they always meant something else than they said" again... it's interesting, you know... we start with a book (the christian bible). Being a book, an ordinary man should have expected that anyone who reads it must understand it. However, each reader understands the bible his own way. So we came to have ecumenical councils & traditions: people of those that read those scriptures told us how we should understand them, and forced their views upon us. And now we have people that teach us what those guys who interpreted the bibles actually meant. As about the protestants, the things are the same except with some ecumenical councils and church fathers, but we got to have the reformats (i.e. the protestant leaders): they told the people how they should understand the bible - they tried their best, with their natural language to make it accessible to the common. But, as years passed and those former leaders died, their followers realized that there are too many differences in their own beliefs, so their religious leaders started to interpret to the common what the former leader actually meant when he was saying what the bible actually says. And as we have more leaders that contributed to the doctrine, one starts to study the writings of Z who said what Y actually meant when he said what X actually meant ... ... ... about what the bible actually meant. I'm only curios... why can't we people ever understand what other people say, even when they do their best to be clear?