What Does the Second Coming Entail?

I must confess of all the discussions we have here, those are the most fascinating as they reveal the most about the underlying cognitive processes of the more literal believers:We always start with the concept that the bible is straight forward and the message is relatively easy to get (if we really want to).We always start with the concept that the bible is literal and the word of god.Then at some stage, someone will introduce a section of the bible that involves God (not man, not jesus not anyone else - the big boss, the big cheese) saying something directly such as "I XXXXXXXXXXXXX".At this stage the literal believer will say "ah that's straight forward" and then... will provide a complex explanation that either totally avoids the issue or involves reversing the meaning of a word.In this example we are expected to understand that "bring" means "absence of" and that it's meant as a commentary on some aspect of man's actions - even when the verse clearly indicates it's GOD that is being discussed.All the time the believer maintains that this is a literal reading of the text, although it is clearly an interpretation!Edited by CK, : fixing tags - and I have to notice - I never made "bring" a yellow box...... maybe God is trying to signal something to our literal chums!!!

that's why i so enjoy debating fundamentalists using the bible. it illustrates that their primary point -- that they believe the bible is the literal word of god, inerrant in every way -- is not something that even they actually agree with in practice. it also illustrates that the fundamentalist mindset is NOT based on the bible at all. actually, they're half right, but for the wrong reasons. in many cases, the examples i used are referring to the exile -- which the people who WROTE the bible interpretted as resulting from the actions of man. in otherwords, god is doing evil to punish man. i find it highly ironic that i read the bible more literally than the "literalists." when the bible says god does evil, it means it.

---

I think you and I see eye to eye on this one.

Er, the Bible of course. The disagreement might lie in the way you phrase this claim: The way I read what you say is that God, in applying evil was being evil himself in so doing - for that would be the implication of him calling his own actions evil. I disagree that God calls his action of applying or creating or devising evil, evil. I argue that God applies evil as a tool in order to achieve an objective. Whilst none of your quotes support the notion that God calls his own actions evil or that there is any evil in him, generally they do support my argument that evil as a tool applied with a view to acheiving a particular result. For example:

quote:

---

2Ki 21:12 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle.

---

God brings evil. This doesn't imply that the action of bringing it was evil. The objective is to bring about a stated result. Evil is a tool used to do this

quote:

---

Mic 2:3 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, against this family do I devise an evil, from which ye shall not remove your necks; neither shall ye go haughtily: for this time is evil.

---

One evil devised and the reason for devising it given. Evil applied against evil.

quote:

---

Jer 18:11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.

---

The action is not stated to be evil. Evil as a tool applied with a purpose in mind (a good purpose note: evil used to bring about good - which I was contending elsewhere)There is little point in going on and on Arach. The statement God "calls his actions evil" is not demonstrated by such passages. He brings about evil alright, but we would need something to say that the bringing itself was evil in order for your claim to hold true.The verse which states that "In him there is no darkness at all..." can be taken as read for want of any evidence to the contrary. May I argue that I think it blasphemous to suggest that God has any evil in him at all. Or that anything he does can be said to be evil - even by himself. God is not capable of anything at allEdited by iano, : No reason given.

---

Carpenter from Nazareth seeks joiners

quote:

---

2Ki 21:12 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle.

---

so...you're admitting that God does bring evil (albeit in order to do good) so it's very possible that Hitler, the Moors murderers, and Jeffrey Dahmers really used evil as a tool to further an ultimately good purpose.Their actions cannot be stated to be evil.After all, we don't know what the ultimate purpose of their actions was , so how can we brand them evil ??I'm leaving now. I need to find a wall to bang my head against.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I never denied for me to have to admit it There is a fatal flaw in this line of reasoning. Can you spot it? I occurs to me that I could PotM this as a clear statement of moral relativism. But its not my style to haul a persons argument out of context if I can help it Spotting the fatal flaw above is a slightly less painful option. If you can't I'll suppose that banging your head against a wall is a regular pastime of yours

I'm just following your line of reasoning. You asserted that although God brings evil he may be doing it for an ultimately good purpose, therefore we can't call him evil.you're not saying your logic is flawed, are you ? hey, I'm just seeing your logic through. Don't blame me if you don't like the conclusion of your syllogism. oh go on, help the dumb infidel out

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

and yet, there it is, in black and white, in the bible. funny, isn't it?god calls his actions evil. who are you to disagree with god? no argument there. i will even go so far as to say that i agree that god's objective is always good. but the actions themselves, as per the word of god are evil. you either read it literally, or you cannot claim to be a literalist. perhaps you didn't read them?

quote:

---

Exd 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

---

god thought to do evil.

quote:

---

Jer 11:11 Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.

---

says god, "i will bring evil upon them."

quote:

---

Jer 23:12 Wherefore their way shall be unto them as slippery ways in the darkness: they shall be driven on, and fall therein: for I will bring evil upon them, even the year of their visitation, saith the LORD.

---

says god, "i will bring evil upon them."

quote:

---

Eze 6:10 And they shall know that I am the LORD, and that I have not said in vain that I would do this evil unto them.

---

says god, "i will do evil to you, but it's only because i love you."it really sounds to me like god is saying "i will do evil." doesn;t that sound like what it's saying to you? look: "I would do this evil." pretty straightforward. hope your gymnastics team does well in the finals. hey, beats me man. i just read what's on the page. it's not my fault if certain praises don't align with the things god himself says. you can argue it, but the bible clearly disagrees. it may agree in one part, sure. but other parts sure disagree in strength. even in genesis, it's the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" that belongs to god, when mankind eats of it, god says "oh no, now man is like me, knowing good and evil." now that is blasphemy.

---

His actions are bringing, doing, creating and so forth. He doesn't call his action evil. Action is a verb. The object, evil, is subject to his action. He applies evil - it doesn't eminate from within himself.Which is different to our actions being evil in and of themselves. The reason for our actions being evil is that evil within causes the action to be an evil one. We have nothing however, to suppose evil in God causing his actions to be motivated by evil. If the action is not motivated by evil but good then how can the action of bringing on evil itself be said to be evil? "Repenting" isn't evil. Neither is "thinking to do unto". Nor even is actually "doing unto". How God does it is what matters. If he permits someones evil to occur and that person hurts another. God has done it - but the evil isn't his. Nor is his action in permitting us to do what we want. Is it evil to permit someone to do what they want? Is punishing a disobedience an act of evil or an act of love? It depends on the motivation I suppose. If it were straightforward then dozens of books on the issue wouldn't have been written. Neither would we be having this discussion. The rest of your verses suffer from the same problem so we can concentrate on one if you like: bringing, doing, creating etc - all the same thing really It was you who said God called his action evil. Action: do, think, bring, create. Go for it Arach. Deal with the verb not the object the verb operates on. The devil is in the detail of the Bible (oops, I see this one coming right back at me) I presume you agree that God inspired John to write what he wrote about Him. If so, you assume non-alignment. On what authority? And you pick one over the other. On what authority?Your inability to align them allied to a personal preferance? Like is not the same as same. Nor does God knowing about evil make his actions evil. Assuming you read it as intended "God is not capable of simply anything anyone might suggest" would you say God is capable of making himself incapable of being capable of simply anything at all?

action is a noun. it is a thing DONE by a verb. ie: the verb is "do" and the action is "evil." if there is no evil in him, how can he think to do an evil? have another look at the sentance."I would do this evil""I" that's god speaking. "would do" that's god doing the action. "this evil" that's god doing the evil. not man, god. god calls it evil. therefor it is. dozens of books to explain a rather puny and obvious reference? that's not explaining, that's explaining away. nor would we be having it if you read the bible for what was on the page. god calls some of his actions evil. do you not see the words "do," "think," "bring," and "create" in that last? it's not just an object, it's a direct object. god does what? evil. the object is subject to his actions -- doing, thinking, bringing, and creating it! you can't try to disguise the simple meaning of the text with semantic games. john? no. on what authority do you presume to include john, or any other text, for that matter? it is your faith. you can bring up references from paul about all scripture being inspired, but on what authority do you include paul, and how can you tell what he's talking about anyways? welcome to religion. but the FACT is that they don't align. and going through these amazing semantic and mental gymnastics to try to apologize for the discrepency is nothing short of dishonest. either you believe what's on the page, as it's written, or it needs to explained and apologized for. if it's the second, you have no claim to saying you believe the bible literally -- because you have to interpret it to mean something other than what it says. you added an extra word, "about." it doesn't say god knows "about" evil, it says god knows evil. if god wished to make himself not-god, he could, yes. i believe this is a somewhat fundamental tenet of christianity, actually.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

[...the crowd on their feet applauding wildly]...the Nadia Comaneci of Christian Literalists.Score: a perfect 10! SO, like I said, we don't know the true motivation of Hitler, Moors murderers, et al. so it's totally unfair to call their actions evil, wouldn't you agree ?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

According to the Oxford English dictionary action is both a verb and a noun. In context my use of action made sense. Did yours?Mine: "Gods actions: do, bring about, create, etc (action as verb).... are not evil"Yours: "God said his actions (evil) are evil". Which doesn't say very much at all.Welcome to the parallel bars Arach. Happy gymnastics How can God think about anything? A person who knows everything wouldn't have to think in the sense that we think think means. So you shouldn't force the word where it patently cannot go. I know its difficult for we are limited to words and I do the same myself - but we are only skirting the edges of God. Getting a absolute handle on him is impossible for us both. We can only make argument in the light of what seems to be the case. Anyway...Evil is out there. He knows it exists observes it at work. Him knowing everything there is to know means he is aware of evil. Nothing thus far to indicate he is evil or that evil eminates from him or is part of his character. He is able to prevent evil if necessary - he can send an angel to tell the wise men to take another route home so as to prevent Herod killing the infant Jesus for example.Now if he didn't take action then presumably Herod would have killed Jesus. Generally then, unless God takes action to prevent it then the evil will occur. Create, do, bring about etc only require God to decide something: to decide whether to allow (by not preventing) or prevent (by not allowing) a particular evil to take place. He could of course prevent all evil but if that resulted in a good end goal not being achieved then preventing all evil wouldn't be good. If by steering evil (using a mixture of allowance and prevention) he achieves a good end goal, then his steering of evil is a good thinkg, even though what he steers is evil. I know he does it. But how does he do it? If the way he does it doesn't involve an evil action on his part then his action is not evil - even though the result is evil. As per above argument. God does evil by allowing it to happen. We strain towards it - he hold us back, then he releases his hold. God would be evil if he was obliged to hold us back but didn't. But he is not obliged to hold us back from evil is he? I know, he says evil (action as noun) is evil. You mean take it literally word for word irrespective of another verse which say in him is no darkness at all. I don't take the bible literally in that sense Arach. Any reason why I should Any of it inspired? If so which bits and how do you know? If not (at least for the sake of discussion) then why are we having a conversation about what God may or may be like? If not assumed to be inpired (for the sake of discussion) then we cannot trust any of it to accurately represent anything about him. "I do evil" might actually have been meant to be written as "I don't do evil" but the author decided to change things around a bit. Huh? Who ever said I believed the bible in the literal sense you mean here? I have written plenty on this site to indicate anything but that. A straw toilet you're yanking the chain on there, Arach If I write its a FACT they do align does that make it so? This is what our discussion is about. Claiming FACT is hiding your argument behind a bushel I know my mother. Does it mean I am my mother. I know Dublin like the back of my hand. Does that mean I am Dublin. C'mon Arach, you can sit picking such holes in the fabric of my argument but would you consider some a bit deeper by way of rational arguement?All you seem to be relying on is forcing a rigidly literal reading of the words when words can be interpreted in the light of other ideas - like in him there is NO darkness. Could God make himself completely not exist in such a way as to make him re-existance impossible. And after doing that, make himself exist again?

I see you didn't take up my advice to spot the flaw in your argument. So I'll tell you. Hitler isn't God. Your comparing a very large (under discusssion) apple with a known rotten pear.And drawing the conclusions that might be expected of such a hopelessly weak comparison.

As an addendum to the last post:If evil is an attribute of God. If it can arise from within him. If he can, as you say do absolutely anything at all - then we know too that God can lie.If God can lie Arach, why do you trust anything at all that is said to be an attribute of him. Why do you read the Bible and study Hebrew? Why do you get into discussions about God when you can't be sure of anything you reckon you know about him? He could be lying about it all.Just curious.

do you have a wife? a girlfriend? is she capable of cheating on you? lying to you?do you trust her not to?do you have faith that she won't? he could be, yes. even if he is, it is our duty to follow him and only him. we are taught this very lesson in genesis 3.

---