What Does the Second Coming Entail?

no, iano, the bible says he is capable of evil. sounds like your problem, if you assert that god is not evil.

---

The bible said he created evil. You conclude he is capable. But that merely speculates that in order to create evil he must be capable of evilBut you said you didn't know what the process of creation involves.How do you make the link between him creating and him being capable of evil?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

look at the verb tense again, iano. the bible reports that god calls certain actions of his "evil," certain thoughts of his "evil," and that god creates (present tense) evil."doing evil," "thinking evil," and "creating evil" kind of require being capable of evil. are you intentionally being obtuse? i'm not trying to be rude here, i simply cannot believe that you do not get this relatively simple point.how can one DO evil without being capable of evil?

---

I haven't been covering this thread yet, but tuned in on the last page and all I see is stuff about the nature of God regarding evil et al on the whole page so far. This could go on and on into what "evil" means in which context et al. I suggest that if the participants wish to do that topic that someone open a separate thread on that topic. In the mean time, the topic is about the 2nd coming. Let's get back to topic as per Forum Guidelines(abe:item 2) and leave off with the nature of God relative to evil. Thanks. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : Added phrase by edit.

We might be back on track again!The Bible doesn't call any of the verbs involved evil. What the verb creates, brings, does etc produces evil. Evil as a product, a resource. I pointed out quotes of yours which indicated evil as a tool applied. God creates a tool and applies it. But the actual act of creating the tool is never called evil. I'm off to bed. Perhaps we can look at a few of these verses in context again. Evil the tool. I understand your frustration. Do you not think that I feel the same way at times? But no, I am not begin deliberately obtuse. I suppose I look around at all he has made, am staggered by the sheer ingenuity of it all and have no problem in the least supposing he can do something a simple as that. All it takes is a little bit of ingenuity. He has it in spades.The main reason however is the fact that I know him - personally. And all the exposure I have had to him indicates ovewhelmingly (and I mean that in the literal sense of the word that God is light and in him there is no darkness. At all. Even when he disciplines my sorry assG'night Arach. Its tough I know. But y'all calling our God evil.

Would you believe it! There I was giving Arach a good whupping and just as I was starting to getting to enjoy myself Admin steps in.Oh well...See ya around Arach. Nice chatting to you, you old word-for-worder you Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

it says god does evil. it doesn't god does [something that produces] evil. you can't just insert phrases whenver you feel like it.when someone DOES EVIL, the thing they are doing is EVIL. somehow, you are capable of both making a strawman and a meaningless distinction in the same claim. the bible claims that god does, thinks, brings, and creates evil.i have claimed that god is capable of evil. that means that god CAN do something that is evil. this position is backed up by the bible. you did not answer the question. how can anyone or anything do something that they are incapable of doing? god is ingenious yes -- but he is not a logical contradiction. he is either capable of something, or he is not. if he is incapable of something, he cannot do it. if he can do it, then he is capable.that's what the word "capable" means. i know him too. personally.and all the exposure i've had indicates that god is so much more immensely powerful than anything you can even begin to imagine, and that he is capable of anything and everything. so wait, let me get this straight.when the bible says "god does evil" it doesn't actually mean that god does evil.when i say "the bible says god does evil" what i actually mean is that god himself is evil?that's a double standard. amazingly, you're reading the same statement wrong two different ways, and towards two different extremes. think that if you want, but clearly you have very little touch with reality. semantic games frought with logical fallacies, and these amazing mental gymnastics are not what i'd call "whupping" next to the relatively clear language of the bible. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

---

One translation I have seen of that word is not 'evil' but 'woe'. The word is the same used in Genesis when discussion the Tree of Knoweldge of good and evil, though. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

I haven't yet done a suspension and am certainly not anxious to loose my virginity in this regard, so three of you people please listen up and get on topic as per Forum Guidelines, item two. Thanks.

quote:

---

Would you believe it! There I was giving Arach a good whupping and just as I was starting to getting to enjoy myself Admin steps in.

​

Oh well...

---

Delusional. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Hehe. Yeah, right. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Make that 5 of you people who need to listen up concerning Forum Guidelines, item two. Please no more defiance of admin admonitions. Thanks.

I'm assuming that you are referring to an unconditional love, but this undermines the millions of babies slaughtered in utero each year, as well as the countless cases of abuse after the child is already born. At the end of the day, love is a choice. I realize that many people object to that because it betrays the emotions that they confuse with love. Love is a simple epithet that has been thrown about loosely these days, and yet its deeper meaning reaches for something more laudable than mere emotion or some stale, completely naturalistic explanation. Aside from which, you missed my point entirely. The point I was trying to aggrandize was that good/evil, light/darkness, man/woman, haven't the ability to exist without the contrast present. They either don't exist without one another or have no meaning unless they are both relationally present. Love without the ability to reject is a perfectly normal part of nature? And what exactly do you mean by this? You think that you are forced to love people without any chance of not loving that person anymore? Please explain what you mean.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15