According to the Oxford English dictionary action is both a verb and a noun.
quote:
Main Entry: ac·tion
Pronunciation: 'ak-sh&n
Function: noun
the oed reference that refers to "action" as a verb is "to take action." the word itself is still 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
depends. do you speak english? in english, we refer to something that someone does as an "action."
i'm not sure how you can interpret "i will do evil" as "not evil."
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...
you are the one attempting to put god into the "only good" box.
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.
i believe "i create evil" is sufficient to demonstrate where evil comes from.
quote:
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
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
you know god does evil. ok. but doing evil doesn't involve... doing something evil?
even though the result is evil.
no, try again. the RESULT is good. the ACTION is evil. god works evil for good.
God does evil by allowing it to happen.
no, that is not DOING evil. DOING evil is DOING it, not ALLOWING it.
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?
what?
I know, he says evil (action as noun) is evil.
look, it says god does evil. i don't know why this is hard. why are you trying to assert that somehow doing evil is not 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
literally, word for word, what each and every verse says. you can't read one verse with regard to another completely unrelated verse and say "well, the first verse doesn't REALLY mean what it says."
Any of it inspired? If so which bits and how do you know?
i do not believe the bible is inspired in the way that you use the word "inspired."
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.
you are the one claiming that, not i. i think it means what's on the page.
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
do you claim to read it literally at all? because your description above of what is literal and what is not is dishonest. a literal reading does not require (and indeed conflicts with) reading other unrelated passages and enforcing later interpretation over older text. it weights all text equally, and very often a literal reading shows that texts contradict each other.
you can say you read "i do evil" literally when you have to interpret it with "god does no evil" and pretend that, for all intents and purposes, the first verse does not exist, or really mean what it says. you are enforcing an interpretation of consistency, when the literal texts are not consistent.
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
because any person with any degree of common sense can see that if one source claims "A" and another claims "Not A" then they do not agree. because A ≠ Not A.
this is a fairly self-evident axiom that apparently flies out the window anytime a fundamentalist likes.
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?
i never said god IS evil. i said god DOES evil. i don't know why you're even debating this -- it says so in the bible! god is good, yet does evil.
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.
there we go, "interpretted."
yes, i AM forcing a rigidly literal reading of the words that are on the page. but you can't read someone's claim to mean the
opposite of it what it actually says. that's not "interpretation," that's blatant misrepresentation.
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?
can god make a stone so big that even he cannot lift it?
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2