This just looks like a dodge, to put it bluntly.

The example I gave was to make clear the error in your suggestion. You would not be responsible for the evil deeds of a child because you didn't kill it when you could have. This has absolutely nothing to do with your parenting skills! It has to do with your having power over someone, the ability to end that person's life, and not doing so.

There are a whole lot of people you could kill, that you work and live around, and thus prevent them from doing evil deeds. Since you don't do this, are you responsible for the evils they commit?



It looks like you're jumping sideways. You said God could intervene because a bullet has no rights, a truly bizarre argument. Now people certainly have rights, so if the reason God can't intervene when a bullet is involved, then God cannot intervene when a person instead of a bullet is involved, right? Otherwise your comment about bullets makes no sense.

If by "manages the consequences" you mean something like "permits the evil deed to occur, and helps those who suffer because of it," I agree, although I think your way of putting it is odd. If you have something else in mind, you'll have to clarify what it is.



What? How do you get from "There is also no problem in saying that God works with the victims of those impacted by these evil decisions." to "I’m glad you agree God can and does intervene on behalf of victims." much less "By this I assume you mean He alters the sinner’s intended outcome."

This is certainly an odd assumption to make! No, I didn't mean this. I meant what I said. God "works with the victims." This means He comforts them, things like that.



This is a bit outside the scope of our current conversation, but bears comment:



This speaks of God's changing His mind.



Does this have something to do with what we're talking about? That is, are you saying that when the assissin's bullets kills the victim that this means that assissin is carrying out God's will? Or are you starting a different topic of conversation here?



Only in a permissive sense was this God's will. Exactly the same as the bullet of the assassin.



Smoking causes cancer, just like gravity "makes things go down," to put things in lay man's speak. It would be weird to say that whether or not gravity makes things go down depends upon whether or not God chooses to intervene and prevent the normal cause and effect outcome. This isn't the way people speak.

For example, let's consider another example. Walking is good for MM's health. I could say "whether walking is good for MM's health depends upon whether or not someone shoots MM while he is taking a walk." This is a true statement, but rather a wierd one to make. Also it doesn't negate (or in any way help understand) the statement that "walking is good for MM's health."




Your response was still odd. If I say, "Gravity makes things go down" it would be odd for you to respond, "God is not bound by natural law," but this is in effect what you did.



Right. This has been my point.



Right!



You'll have to be more specific. God doesn't "sit back" as you put it, but He certainly does allow Satan to manipulate people to his advantage and to God's disadvantage. This happens at every moment.

If they do not resist the wooing influence of the Holy Spirit, they will choose to be saved. That's what the statement I quoted says.



If they resist the Holy Spirit, they will be lost. If they do not resist, they will be saved.



No, it's not. Resisting the Holy Spirit is an active choice. "Neglect" conveys a different thought than "resist." These aren't synonyms.

Calling it "His permissive will" waters down the force of truth. It is God's will, even when all the options available to Him are evil, to see to it that the best evil option plays out properly. He doesn't simply sit back allow evil to run its course. If you prefer you could look at it this way - It is not God's will to allow the wrong evil options to play out.

Here's what I hear you saying: An all-powerful, all-knowing God seeks to comfort victims He allowed to be victimized so Satan can demonstrate rebelling is wrong. I'm afraid this wouldn't comfort me. I would feel expendable.


Here's a promise to prevent the normal effects of gravity:

Psalm
91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
91:12 They shall bear thee up in [their] hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Here's what she wrote about angels intervening:


The in passages posted above there is no indication God leaves things to the whims of evil angels. They are very much involved in the outcome of human choices - influencing their choices, their words, their course of action.


God is continually preventing the Devil from overstepping the limitations God places on him. Job is an example.


If you're busy resisting the Holy Spirit you don't have time to choose to be saved. Salvation is neglected by default. I like what she says in the following passages:

Regarding evil and God's will, this is simple. Anytime something evil happens, that's not God's will. God allows these things to happen because of the Great Controversy.

There's nothing watered down here. All you have to know is that God is good, and only good emanates from Him.

To see what God's will, look at Jesus Christ. She what He did, how He treated people. From that you can discern God's will.



It's not a question of time, but of choice. If one is resisting the Holy Spirit, one is using one's time, actively choosing to be lost.



I don't know that this means.

This I understand:



Isn't this clear?

1.The light shining from the cross reveals the love of God.
2.His love is drawing us to Himself.
3.If we do not resist this drawing, we shall be led to the foot of the cross in repentance for the sins that have crucified the Saviour.

Simple as 1, 2, 3. God's love is resisting us, and if we don't resist we'll be saved.

That's right, isn't it?

Here's what I hear you saying:

An all-powerful, all-knowing God seeks to comfort victims He allowed to be victimized so Satan can demonstrate rebelling is wrong.

Can you explain how? Your cause and effect looks all mixed up.

I don't understand your question, Tom. Were you responding to my last post?

Yes. You said you hear me saying, "An all-powerful, all-knowing God seeks to comfort victims He allowed to be victimized so Satan can demonstrate rebelling is wrong." Can you explain how you see this?

The way you put it doesn't make sense to me. It has cause and effect mixed up. I haven't done this.

Specifically you say "God seeks to comfort victims He allowed to be victimized so Satan can demonstrate rebelling is wrong." This is all mixed up. The order of things are not right. Here's the right order:

1.God allows Satan to do his will.
2.Satan does his will, which results in victims.
3.God comforts the victims.

Okay, let's go with your flow. Tell me again - Why are there victims needing God's comfort? Is it because God allows the Devil to victimize them? How does your formula play out in the following example:

A man follows a single mom and her child home from church. He lays in waiting until midnight. He sneaks in and hurts them. A pastor explains to them that God allows the Devil to do these kinds of things so that the onlooking universe can conclude sin is bad.