The facts of the parable you listed here are accurate. Jesus told the parable exactly as you have described it. Of course Jesus wasn't explaining the truth about hell or heaven. The point of the parable was to impress upon His listeners the importance of getting it right with God now before death overtakes us, that there is no future probation to get it right in the afterlife.

Yes, the operative word in my question is "perverted desires". Can you think of an example of God compromising the truth to temporarily accommodate the perverted desires of sinners? Please keep in mind I'm asking this question in light of the idea God caved in to the perverted desires of the COI and commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. From what you know about God does this sound like something He would do? If not, how, then do you explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?

PS - I'm not accusing anyone on this forum of believing the idea that God caved in to the perverted desires of the COI and commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. I'm simply asking how you explain why God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? Thank you.

MM, kland quoted the parable to answer your question. The people believed an error, and Christ accommodated the error in their thinking with the parable. That was kland's point, which answers your question in the affirmative. Yes, God has accommodated wrong thinking, and the parable is an example of that.

Btw "wrong thinking" as opposed to "perverted desires" strikes to the core of the issue better, as the issue has to do with one's paradigm. How God is perceived to be, and what He is perceived to do or to have done is influenced by one's paradigm.

God has expressed Himself as doing that which He permits, for example. So when it says that God killed Saul, some, because of their paradigm, would interpret that to mean that God took violent action against Saul which caused His death, whereas others, also because of their paradigm, would interpret this to mean that God permitted Saul to die.

Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.


2Sa 12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Deu 21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

You wrote, “Regarding the questions you wrote, numbered 1 through 4, I already answered them.” Are you referring to this comment, “Regarding your questions, I believe God withdrew His protection which accounted for the earthquake, and did so for the reasons pointed out”? If so, then please go through each one and answer them clearly (so I don’t have to guess what you mean). And then I would like to respond to each of your detailed answers. Here are the questions again (bear in mind they relate specifically to the 3SG 80 quote posted above):

1. Is it God's will and purpose?
2. Does God cause it to happen?
3. Is it an evidence of God's power?
4. Does God do it to cause people to tremble before Him?

You also wrote, “Regarding the other 4 questions, I think the following answers them: 'Their sufferings are often represented as a punishment visited upon them by the direct decree of God. It is thus that the great deceiver seeks to conceal his own work.'” If so, then I’m still not clear on your answer to all four questions. So, I’ll answer them for you and then you can explain why it’s wrong or right. Okay? Here goes (bear in mind these questions relate specifically to the 3SG 80 quote posted above and my answers on your behalf incorporate the GC 35 quote you posted):

1. Do you believe Satan has ever caused these kinds of things to happen? Yes.
2. If so, do you believe they were evidences of his power? Yes.
3. Do you believe he has ever designed such things to make God look bad? Yes.
4. Do you believe anyone who believes God caused them to happen, or that it was God's will and purpose for them to happen, is deceived? Yes.

How did I do? If we agree on my answers to these questions on your behalf, then we should also be able to agree with the following observations (again, as they relate to the questions and answers above): “You believe Satan caused these things to happen, that they are evidences of his power, that he designed them to make God look bad, and that anyone who believes God caused them to happen, or that it was God's will and purpose for them to happen, is deceived.” Do you agree? NOTE: I understand you were offended when I said you apply these observations to the 3SG 80 quote posted above. But now I’m asking something totally different.

I have another question in relation to the 3SG 80 quote posted above. Do you think Ellen mentioned anything or described any disasters in that quote which you believe Satan caused rather than God? If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why not. Thank you.


I agree Jesus did things that caused the caviling cowards to tremble, but my question has nothing to with sinners trembling before God. I’m asking about the natural disasters described in 3SG 80. When Jesus cleansed the temple nothing happened that even remotely resembled sinners “going down alive in the pit” or “fiery issues” burning up large and sinful cities when God withdrew His protection. So again, please name a time when Jesus, while here, withdrew His protection and sinners perished in the kinds of disasters described in 3SG 80. NOTE: So far you haven’t provided an example that actually addresses my question. If you think you already have, then please restate it here for the sake of convenience. Thank you.


Yes, I agree she is talking about Jesus while He was here in the flesh. That’s why I disagree with what you posted above, namely, “. . . all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of Jesus Christ during His time with us in the flesh.” In this paraphrase you leave out a key point which is a part of her original statement. Here is her statement with the part you left out underlined. “All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son." Do you see the difference? If so, then please explain it.

By the way, the phrase "can know" in her statement is referring to man's ability to comprehend. Thus, her meaning is clear, namely, taking into consideration our limited ability to comprehend God, Jesus, while here, revealed everything we need to know about our heavenly Father so that the Holy Spirit can, in turn, empower us to experience rebirth, abide in Jesus, partake of the divine nature, and mature in the fruits of the Spirit. Of course, we need to lay this insight alongside what Jesus told His disciples the night before He died on the cross. Listen:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you."

Jesus is saying He hadn't revealed everything to them. There was more He wanted to tell them. But it would have to wait until later, at which time He would reveal it to them through the Holy Spirit. We can deduce what Jesus was unable to reveal to them during His time here by comparing what we learn about God in the OT with what we learn about throughout the rest of the NT and the SOP. So far in my studies, it is evident to me that Jesus did not reveal the wrath of God while He was here. He never withdrew His protection and allowed sinners to suffer and die. Nor did He ever command people to kill sinners. There are other things too.

Teresaq, thank you. Your examples prove that God permitted divorce and polygamy to accommodate their perverted desires. Now, do you think we can apply this principle elsewhere? For example, based on the passages you posted, can we deduce that God must have commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate their perverted desires?

In the case of Saul, no guess work is necessary to understand the truth. During the heat of battle God did not protect Saul from his enemies. An arrow wounded him and he took his life rather than suffer himself to be captured and tortured. None of which would have happened had God protected him.

PS - What you said above about "wrong thinking" is interesting. Are you implying God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer to accommodate their perverted desires on account of their wrong thinking? If so, please explain why. If not, please explain why not. Thank you.

i forgot one of the most important ones.

1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.


Jdg 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
Jdg 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

1Sa 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
1Sa 8:10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
1Sa 8:11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
1Sa 8:12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
1Sa 8:13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
1Sa 8:14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
1Sa 8:15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
1Sa 8:16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
1Sa 8:17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
1Sa 8:18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

is there any possiblity that it is possible? that is probably the most pertinent question. is "perverted desires" the most appropriate description? how about "perverted thinking"?

when God said to not steal, should He have spelled it out like He did with not coveting?

Regarding the 4 questions, and additional 4 questions, what I think is that God protects us from the evil effects of sin, which can take different forms, including natural disasters, one's own passions (as you pointed out in regards to the Jews in GC1), evil angels, accidents, protection from one's enemies (e.g. Romans, Babylonians, etc.; or personal enemies, e.g. Pharisees/Sadducees and Jesus). These are some that come to mind. We need God's protection for many reasons.

In the case of natural disasters, the power of nature is tremendous. Anyone who can control such power must Himself be very powerful. God regularly controls nature, causing it to run on a proper course, and its power is kept under control. If God were to release His control, nature's power would cause terrible results.

In regards to Korah, it says the earth swallowed him up. Many think this was an earthquake that did this. For example:



Regarding the question if Satan can do the things mentioned in 3SG 80, sure, he could in general, which I'm sure you know. I don't know what you're asking this, since in the context of 3SG 80, he didn't.

Regarding the withdrawal of Jesus' protection and bad things happening, I've already addressed this. There's no need to tie this to the events of SG. The general principle expressed in GC 36 is enough:



This includes peace and protection of all kinds. That this principle was illustrated by Christ in general is enough; it wasn't necessary that every possible permutation of protection withdrawn => trouble comes be shown.



Here's an example to help you understand that what I wrote is completely accurate. Consider the set of numbers divisible by 5, less than or equal to 100 (i.e. 5, 10, 15, 20, etc.). Consider all the set 10, 20, 30 etc. up to 100. The first set represent "all that man can know about God." The second set represent "all that man needs to know about God." If I said, "all that man needs to know about numbers divisible by 5 and less than or equal 100 is contained in the second set" that might be true (Suppose man doesn't need to know, for some reason, about numbers divisible by 5 which end in 0). However, the statement "all that man can know about numbers divisible by 5 and less than or equal to 100 is contained in the second set" would not be true. But it would be true to say "all that man can know about numbers divisible by 5 and less than or equal to 100 is contained in the first set."

The first set is a superset of the second set. Similarly the statement "all that man can know of God" is a superset of the statement "all that man needs to know of God." That is, there is nothing that man needs to know about God which is not included in those things which man can know about God. So to say that Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know about God is sufficient.



Here's what she said:



This seems clear to me. I don't think by writing this that she meant "All that man needed to know at the time of Christ, or could know at that time, but not things which man could know at some later time, were revealed by Christ." Otherwise Christ's revelation would not be sufficient, and she would have been honor bound to explain that. She would have had to have written, "NOT all that man needs to know about God was revealed by Christ. In addition to Christ, one should also consider the following to learn what needs to be known of God. (list of items)"

We have a fundamental difference of opinion here. I believe that Christ was a full and complete revelation of God. Even had she not said this here I would believe this. Jesus Christ Himself taught this. What Ellen White said here is no different than what Jesus was saying in John 14 or John 17.

On the other hand, you do not believe Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, was a full and complete revelation of God. You see Him as a partial revelation of God. So God is sometimes like what Jesus was like while here in the flesh, and sometimes not like that.

This is our disagreement.

There's no guess work necessary to understand the truth in other cases either. God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and He fully revealed Himself in Christ.



If their thinking had been correct, there would have been no necessity to deal with Sabbath-breakers in this way. You don't think we should deal with Sabbath-breakers this way, do you?

I suppose you might answer, "Well we're not in a theocracy." That's true, but I don't think that's the reason the Sabbath-breakers were to dealt with in so draconian a fashion. It was because of the Israelite's ignorance that these draconian measures came up.

In Jesus' time Israel was still a theocracy, and Jesus steadfastly refused any sort of violence of this sort.