A discussion with tack

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sorry, I have a tendency to be flowery with language. Regarding what it means to be a god, I agree with you, the concept is nebulous, but it hasn't always been so. In fact some gods proposed were very specific...these gods fell by the wayside when we found better explanations for things such as rain, just to give one example. I understand the underpinnings of the deists argument of god, no sense in rehashing them at all. I'm simply stating that the deists god, which does not answer prayers, interact with us..whatever..is the product of the constant erosion of the theists claims. If a believer wants to argue for God, with a capital G, they're going to have to do better than plug god into whatever we don't currently have an explanation for. That's a god of the gaps. Saying that god only needs to create us to be god, is strikingly similar to saying, "I don't know how we got here..ergo god". Maybe it only bothers me when a theist responds to the statement "Your god is not real" with the contention that the deists god cannot be conclusively shown not to exist. That's not what they're arguing for at all is it, we've let them pull a bait and switch haven't we.

We don't have to refute the deist concept of god to invalidate the theist concept of god. Further, it doesn't matter whether the deists concept of god is logically possible...that doesn't address the theists argument does it ? Logically proving that any concept of god COULD exist may be a wonderful exercise in logic, or rhetoric...but it completely fails to invalidate the absolutely stunning amount of evidence that we have leading us to the conclusion that gods are mans invention. Sometimes, it seems, a debate can become so technical that one loses sight of the fact that we're debating over something that exists in the real world. Stories, myths, drawings on caves..these are real things in the real world, all following patterns of progression..all influenced by earlier narratives or the storytellers unique position in time or geography.

Does that help to simplify my position?

---

And for the record..I don't define a god, it's believers do. A god is a list of attributes or actions ascribed to a supernatural cause by those who believe. It can be the god of the whole damned thing (christian god) or the God of Biscuits with Holes in Them. In the end I really don't have any say in what someone defines a god to be do I? I just insist, that when they make such certain claims, they be able to back it up with more than hot air and thoughtful philosophical debates.

[Zenith]

In fact some gods proposed were very specific...these gods fell by the wayside when we found better explanations for things such as rain, just to give one example.

Funny thing: it is a popular conception that this is how the gods were born. But this sounds quite... illogical to me. Consider this: man, while he was still an animal (i.e. without having the attributes that made him man) saw the rain and the thunder as something natural, like "it just happens". Now, when he grew up and developed some intelligence, said "There must be a creature like me behind that rain!!". In other words, if we consider that has man invented the gods to explain the natural phenomena as he evolved into a man, then we have some problems:

1) From where the hell did he get the idea that there must have been a human-like creature behind the rain?? I mean, consider a child that has some ability to think (4-5 years old) and he sees the rain - he wasn't told anything scientific nor religious regarding the rain. The child sees the rain, and... what is the first thought? "there must be a human-like person that did it!"???

The man imagines by combining what he sees - he doesn't invent something 100% new. So the problem is: neither the pre-human being nor the first human being could have invented the concept "god" (as we didn't have the concept "alien" before understanding that the celestial bodies are truly similar to the earth in shape, and that other planets may be just like us - to support life and life to be born there - life like we are).

So, growing up for millennia with the thought regarding the rain that it is simply a natural thing, "it just happens", and being accustomed with that understanding/view, it would have been a way too big step to come and say "there was a creature looking like me that did that!!". And I believe that such a situation is... quite impossible.

2) It would have been much easier to assume that "it just is so", "it has always been so", etc. I've heard (but, can't check that) that once it was thought that the universe was never created, but that everything simply existed as it is now. Now, wouldn't it be much easier to the first human being as it is to a 4 years old boy to assume that "things have always been so"? Would that statement have been less smart or something?

3) The thing with the rain (i.e. we have rain => we have a god of rain) cannot represent too many deity types. For instance, we had gods of wine (wine, which was invented by man), gods of parties (perhaps usually or always, they were the gods of wine or fertility), gods of war, etc., i.e. everything that man was and man did was impersonated into gods. This was obviously not done to explain natural phenomena.

I understand the underpinnings of the deists argument of god, no sense in rehashing them at all. I'm simply stating that the deists god, which does not answer prayers, interact with us..whatever..is the product of the constant erosion of the theists claims.

Well, I think deism evolved from theism. But even deism evolved into what it is now. Perhaps modern deism evolved into a more natural (rather than supernatural) approach of God's existence that would explain why miracles don't happen among us.

If a believer wants to argue for God, with a capital G, they're going to have to do better than plug god into whatever we don't currently have an explanation for. That's a god of the gaps. Saying that god only needs to create us to be god, is strikingly similar to saying, "I don't know how we got here..ergo god".

Well, I make distinction between the word "god" and the word "God" - the latter, usually referring to the God of Islam or the God of Christianity or the God of Judaism or the God of deists. That's because if one uses the word "god" only (without making a distinction between "god" and "God"), the deists may understand "The First Cause", the muslims "Allah", etc. and "a god who is not a god" sounds very odd (I think about a god of wine and someone tells me that because I don't know what, he is not a god).

About "Saying that god only needs to create us to be god, is strikingly similar to saying, "I don't know how we got here..ergo god"" - I didn't mean that. I meant that I use the word "God" to signify the Creator, originator of the Universe, unlike a god that simply taught people to make wine.

As about the "god of the gaps"... I don't know what to say. Basically, every philosophy is like that: an uncheckable hypothesis that gives an explanation to something - and that hypothesis is backed up with reasons, not evidence. Also, science itself is based on reason (along with technology), i.e. what scientists say is what they understand of the things they notice (and those things that lead them to conclude a thing are being called "evidence").

The fact is that I didn't spend much time debating with people over the "god's existence" issue. So, sorry that I can't add something much fruitful.

Maybe it only bothers me when a theist responds to the statement "Your god is not real" with the contention that the deists god cannot be conclusively shown not to exist. That's not what they're arguing for at all is it, we've let them pull a bait and switch haven't we.

My poor english... what does "bait and switch" mean?

The fact is that there is a big step between the deist God and a theist God. That is, one may claim even that a conscious God - much more superior to man - created everything, but that He is now ignoring everybody - and no one can prove the contrary. Or, one may claim that there is a conscious God that created everything and who is deceiving everybody, so that all our life is actually only an illusion (and not the reality) - that cannot be checked either. But the fact is that when we're talking about religions (specific theist Gods), no one can really prove that his religion is the 'truth' and that the god of his religion is the true God.

We don't have to refute the deist concept of god to invalidate the theist concept of god.

Well, the fact is that I don't think that the deist God could be proven not to exist. The statement is like saying "There is a person that belongs to a dimension we could never reach, so that we can never check to see whether he indeed exists or not. Now prove me that that being does not exist!"

As about the theist Gods... We can check religions and use our reasoning to get to a conclusion regarding their claim. E.g. you could say either that Allah is unfair, unjust, insane, illogical, etc. and that He exists, OR (because you don't like how it sounds), that He doesn't exist. And a logical reason to support the latter would be to say "if there were indeed a God Allah as He is in the Qur'an, then the world we see around would have been a very chaotic world". And the latter is still reason, not evidence.

Further, it doesn't matter whether the deists concept of god is logically possible...that doesn't address the theists argument does it ?

No, it doesn't.

Logically proving that any concept of god COULD exist may be a wonderful exercise in logic, or rhetoric...but it completely fails to invalidate the absolutely stunning amount of evidence that we have leading us to the conclusion that gods are mans invention.

It is not evidence. It is reasoning: you can't bring any evidence that the goddess Athena never existed or that the god Zeus never existed or that who knows what god that came first in people's cultures never existed - and that he/she doesn't still exist. It is only our reason that makes us draw the conclusion that it was man's imagination that made them.

Does that help to simplify my position?

Yes.

And for the record..I don't define a god, it's believers do. A god is a list of attributes or actions ascribed to a supernatural cause by those who believe. It can be the god of the whole damned thing (christian god) or the God of Biscuits with Holes in Them. In the end I really don't have any say in what someone defines a god to be do I?

Actually, given the fact that the word "god" is being used, having a definition, i.e. a clear understanding of what that should mean, is good. Consider: you don't have to be a christian to say what a "church" is, or a muslim to say what a "mosque" is. Those buildings are religious, they belong to religious people, but everyone uses those words. So you don't say "I don't define the word "mosque". Let the muslims define it!" - you do indeed have a clear image of what a "mosque" is. The same is with the gods: you don't have to be a worshiper of the ancient greek gods to define the word "gods" - you simply use the meanings that have been assigned on them all this time.

[The Grand Nudger]

I probably could have clarified myself in fewer words. Specific gods can be proven to be non-existent, I like to reference cargo cults here because they were relatively recent, and extremely well documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

The mention of the Tanna cult is one such example. There we have gods which plainly do not exist (unless one wishes to claim that army personnel are gods).

If a claim is made regarding what a god is, or where he is, or what he has done..and it turns out that these things are in fact not true, that god does not exist. A god is the sum of all the stories told, all the attributes given. Believers once pointed to the sky and imagined that the sun was a god riding a fiery chariot....turns out its a star instead.

If you remove all of these claims, if you remove all of these attributes. If god no longer talks to us, intervenes on our behalf, or impedes our actions, if a god no longer commands the rain to fall or the sun to shine, we may still call this concept god, but it has ceased to mean the thing which was originally proposed. That's what I mean when I say "a god who is not a god".

BTW, you have a better command of english than I have of whatever your first language is, so congratulations there.

---

Bait and Switch, now that you know, you should work it into your english, it adds some flare..lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch

By the way, is there a similar phrase regarding this type of thing in your language? If so, what is it and what does it mean translated directly into english?

[tackattack]

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.

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

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?

3a)here are 191 references I’m sure some of which apply to Satan as well.
To answer “I meant, how would you determine that it was God speaking and that they were not simply your own thoughts in your head? “Here are some guidelines.
God's word will never contradict Scripture, will never tempt you to do wrong, rarely the loudest one.
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.
“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.
“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
No I was saying that one person listens to X and the other can’t hear X, not that they have 2 different Holy Spirits.
The morality part yes you understood

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

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.

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

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.

---

Could it not be said simply, that if enough provisions are made, and if we allow enough leeway for the believer to define favorable terms for himself...that a general concept of god can be argued for within the realm of logic or philosophy? That the concept of god thus obtained does not resemble the concept of god as advertised in any holy book we've ever written may be unsatisfying to us is a notion which some believers may not wish to address. If one wishes to corner their god within the confines of logic or philosophy, so much the better, as it only assists one in divorcing that concept from observed reality. It leaves a god who is not a god. Besides, arguing for the finer points of the tooth fairy does not make the tooth fairy any less imaginary.
Sorry to insert myself into your conversation if either of you feel that it is unwarranted, sometimes I simply cannot hold my tongue. I'll attempt more restraint going forward.

---

Of course I have no problems with it. I contend that a general concept God is logically possible. What attributes would you attribute it and define it that seems illogical? My concept of God is “as advertised” in the Holy Book I read. What was advertised to you?

[The Grand Nudger]

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. We haven't leveraged our far more refined traditions of philosophy or logic at all on this one. Is this the kind of thing you mean when you say you believe "as advertised"?

[Zenith]

I probably could have clarified myself in fewer words. Specific gods can be proven to be non-existent, I like to reference cargo cults here because they were relatively recent, and extremely well documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

The mention of the Tanna cult is one such example. There we have gods which plainly do not exist (unless one wishes to claim that army personnel are gods).

If a claim is made regarding what a god is, or where he is, or what he has done..and it turns out that these things are in fact not true, that god does not exist. A god is the sum of all the stories told, all the attributes given.

The thing that makes us believe that those are not gods is that we know exactly those gods' origins and we have other information about them. It is not the fact that those gods do not answer prayers or something. And this example you gave is one of the fewest cases (perhaps less than 1%) where we know for sure how that god was born. In the other 99%+ we have assumptions only.

Now regarding "If a claim is made regarding what a god is, or where he is, or what he has done..and it turns out that these things are in fact not true, that god does not exist"... that's wrong. Let me explain: in the ancient Greece you had those pagan gods (Zeus, Athens, Poseidon, etc.). BUT the claims about those gods differed from region to region, and as I know, they also contradicted one with other. So if you say that in order for Zeus to exist, all claims about Him must be true, then which version of the Zeus god do you choose between them? Some of those people must have said "oh, that story of Zeus is erroneous. This one is the true version!" - What do you say about that? Or let's take the Christian God: if a "god/God" is what He is understood to be (and to be like, and to do and to have done, etc.), then you've got thousands or more versions of the Christian God (or, better said, thousands of Christian Gods). You ask a pentecostal, He tells you one thing, you ask a catholic, God is totally different to him, you ask another christian, he understands God in his own way. So which of them do you choose? Yeah, and one great difference: the Evolutionist God, or the Creationist God?

I'll give you a hypothesis, which I believe you cannot prove wrong: the ancient greek gods exist and one day, they revealed themselves to the people, and presented to them the "true story". But, as time passed, people (being human beings, obviously they did this) twisted some of the information, and also invented some stories themselves. Now, given this hypothesis, I'm 100% sure that you cannot prove me that Zeus & Poseidon never existed. Can you?

Believers once pointed to the sky and imagined that the sun was a god riding a fiery chariot....turns out its a star instead.

I'm a bit skeptic about this. People did associate gods with stars (and also with the sun and the moon), but it's hard for me to believe that they confounded a seemingly yellow disk on the sky with a human being. Consider the egyptian gods Ra and Seth: Ra was the god of the sun and mid-day, while Seth was the god of darkness. Now from the stories you've heard and probably read, it is impossible to imagine the struggles between Ra and Seth (whom were presented as human beings, on a natural environment - the earth, Egypt, the Nile river) as happening on the sky, Ra being a yellow disk. So I say that the ancient gods were associated with stars (and sun and moon), not confounded by them. Also look at a picture of Ra and you'll see the Sun on top of his head (because the Sun was his symbol = represented him = was associated with him), rather than himself being a a yellow disk (i.e. the Sun). If you insist that they actually confounded the gods with the celestial bodies, then please give some... evidence.

If you remove all of these claims, if you remove all of these attributes. If god no longer talks to us, intervenes on our behalf, or impedes our actions, if a god no longer commands the rain to fall or the sun to shine, we may still call this concept god, but it has ceased to mean the thing which was originally proposed. That's what I mean when I say "a god who is not a god".

You're right here... except that the current existing gods do talk with people (it is claimed so by their adepts), intervene in their behalf, impede people's actions and decide where the clouds to travel to rain, etc.

Bait and Switch, now that you know, you should work it into your english, it adds some flare..lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bait-and-switch

By the way, is there a similar phrase regarding this type of thing in your language? If so, what is it and what does it mean translated directly into english?

I haven't heard of anything similar in my language. I don't know if there is. Perhaps it's only said that you're being tricked or something.

[reverendjeremiah]

In discussions like this, I lean heavily on the philosophy of Absurdism.

#1 - Religious belief, just like political templates, are a free for all. Each individuals ideas of religion are different than any others. No matter how fundamental, "pure", and dogmatic they thing they are.

#2 - Pointing at the vast past and contemporary evidence that the "meaning of life" is merely an opinion, as no inherent meaning of life has yet been discovered, in relation to the individual.

#3 - therefore if a divinity exists, or a numerous amount of divinity's exist, then regardless of abundant or lack of dogma, or subect thereof, can disprove that said creator(s) are directly responsible for such an absurd circumstance as meaning being a personal and fleeting, as opposed to inherent and eternal matter.

#4 - Therefore the cosmos, with or without gods, is absurd.

Yes..Absurdism is a form of agnosticism...and it is very easy holding that philosophy to find humor in many things that most others would not or could not dare to go.

I like to call it "agnosticism on crack".

[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?

[The Grand Nudger]

We actually know a great deal about the kinds of things people 5000 years ago thought about. It's all over everything they made, just like it is today. We have mountains of data as to where concepts of god come from. Specifically we have mountains of data as to where both the god of the NT and the god of the OT come from (it's a very interesting discussion, and the case can be made very easily that they're not the same god). It's just as clear a case as the Tannu, unless you believe that it is not. Why aren't you suspending disbelief for the Tannu god Tom Army in the way that you are suspending disbelief for Zues, Athena, etc?

I don't understand why you (or anyone for that matter) insist that we don't know these things. There's an entire field of academic research devoted to it. There's even a sub-field devoted to nothing else within that field. Cultural Anthropology and Comparative Religion. There are real people, in the real world, who consider real evidence and make this their life's work.

It may be an interesting discussion, theorizing as to why god would do this or that, or how....but I can't help but make the comparison to Santa. How do his reindeer fly? Can we show logically that his reindeer can fly? What are the philosophical implications of flying reindeer? In what way does this sort of discussion about god differ from the discussion about Santa and his reindeer?

A quick note about atheism, I can't speak for all atheists, however. It is not because I am already an atheist that there are explanations other than god. It is precisely because there are other explanations that I am an atheist.

It is not the atheist who wishes god to be beyond explanation, or states that there "could be no" evidence, it is the theist that insists he must be, that there cannot be. Again, this was not always the case. God/gods didn't "exist outside of this universe" until theists had to account for the curious lack of god IN this universe. As an atheist, I can say "show me the evidence", I'd be forced to change my position wouldn't I? It is the theist who maintains that no such evidence could exist, and yet they see it everywhere. It's dishonest, a debating tactic, no statement of truth.

[reverendjeremiah]

It is not the atheist who wishes god to be beyond explanation, or states that there "could be no" evidence, it is the theist that insists he must be, that there cannot be. Again, this was not always the case. God/gods didn't "exist outside of this universe" until theists had to account for the curious lack of god IN this universe. As an atheist, I can say "show me the evidence", I'd be forced to change my position wouldn't I? It is the theist who maintains that no such evidence could exist, and yet they see it everywhere. It's dishonest, a debating tactic, no statement of truth.

I can tell you what else "exists outside of this universe", and that is nothing.

..may I also point out the invisible and the non-existant look exactly the same.

Another thing, I have heard a few of my fellow electricians say "god is infinitely powerful". I ask them to explain EXACTLY what we learned about power theory when it comes to "infinite power". They slowly and grudgingly admit that "infinite power" is THE EXACT SAME THING as "no power". When you are deluded, sometimes it is difficult to admit that you hold conflicting definitions.