This doesn't seem like much of a problem. Just point out the things you want addressed. I'm not going to re-read questions in a post I've already answered. If I missed a post, I'll address that. If I've already addressed the post, I'll address any concerns you have regarding that, which you spell out. Or if you think I didn't address some question at all, I'll address that if you repost it.

In regards to the comment you made following the questions which I said Satan was capable of doing, as I said I was sure you knew, I assume you mean this one:



I wouldn't want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. You took a passage that the SOP wrote and inserted "Satan" in the place of "God." I don't feel any need to go beyond inspiration, and certainly not to do something like this.

What Ellen White wrote in GC 35, 36 is clear enough for me. Quoting just a bit:



I believe this same principle applies to the other forces which destroy men, such as natural forces, one's enemies (whether individuals or nations) or whatever. All of these things are indirectly the result of Satan's activities, because Satan is the "author of sin, and of all of its results." (DA 471). However, not all of these things are of necessity the *direct* results of Satan's activities. Here's the DA statement:



I believe this applies to all destructive actions, not just disease. That is, all destruction results as a result of sin. Satan leads men to look at these things as being punishment arbitrarily inflicted on account of sin, which is how I perceive you look upon many of these destructive activities. What I believe is that God does not inflict punishments because of sin, but that sin has the punishments wrapped up in itself, and that God usually shields us from these punishments, but sometimes withdraws His protection, as per GC 36.

I don't believe that sometimes destruction comes because God is inflicting punishments Himself, and sometimes because He withdraws His protections allowing the destructive power of sin to be manifest in some way, but that God never arbitrarily inflicts these punishments (where "arbitrarily" is Webster's primary definition, not "whimsical" or "capricious").

I believe that often God's actions have been misunderstood, as pointed out here:



I don't believe this is simply dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem, but there are many other instances where the "great deceiver" has successfully deceived. I think often you perceive God as doing the things the great deceiver has been responsible for, in part because you do not perceive this statement as representing a general principle, but as representing a specific case.

Indeed, my paradigm is much different than yours. I see God as communicating principles to us, and we are to learn these principles, which explain how we should govern our lives and how God runs the universe. You seem to have a paradigm which relies not on general principles but on studying episodes case by case, which is probably why you ask me what about this case, what about that one, what about that one, and so forth. Also this would explain why you want a list of sins which the Holy Spirit waits to reveal later (your words, not mine), or why you think that God's character is such that He would have us do things without our understanding why.

So my approach is to try to understand the general principles, and apply them to a case or two to see how they work. I have no desire to look through each and every case, nor does my paradigm require that. I see sufficient evidence upon which to base my faith, which is that:

a.God is not the destroyer, Satan is.
b.Force is not a principle of God's kingdom.
c.God does not overcome rebellion by force.
d.God was fully revealed by Jesus Christ while here in the flesh. (i.e. God is just like Jesus Christ).
e.God's wrath is manifest by His withdrawing His protections.

In the case of the quote dealing with Korah, etc., I believe God's power was manifest in that He controls nature. Nature is tremendously powerful, and it takes a being more powerful that it to control it. God uses nature to do his bidding, which at times involves His permitting its power to be manifest in destructive ways. But God would always prefer to be able to protect us. Unfortunately, sometimes this is not possible, either for reasons of the GC (such as Job), or because people have "caused the protection of God to be withdrawn from them."

I see that there are two general classes of destruction in Scripture. One is where God withdraws His protection. I think these are easier to understand. Scripture often presents God as doing that which He permits.

The other class is more difficult to understand, and involves cases where God is recorded as having told someone else to destroy. Regarding this more difficult situation, I have given the hunter father analogy. You say you don't see how this applies. Ok, you don't see it. I don't see what is to be gained trying to get you to see something you don't see, especially when you don't see things which are much easier to see than this (I'm speaking from my perspective, of course; I'm not meaning to be putting you down here at all; just pointing out that there are things which I perceive which you do not perceive in the same way).

In the case of Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, I believe the hunter father analogy applies. It's not simply that the individual Jews who approached Moses were uncertain how to proceed, but there was the mindset of the whole nation to consider. God had to work with an entire nation of ignorant, backward folks (who had to be told to do things like bury their dung) who had just been slaves, so God did the best He could given the circumstances He was in.

I see your whole approach here is completely off base and fruitless. You're trying to do the very thing which I'm arguing against, which is to understand God on the basis of the OT, without having this study filtered by what Christ revealed about God while here in the flesh (btw, you come up with some nice acronymns, such as "FMA"; do you have a suggestion for how to communicate "Jesus Christ while here in the flesh" in a shorter way?).

So what I'm suggesting is if you want to understand the situation with Moses and the Sabbath-breaker, go to the life of Christ, and look for episodes which deal with similar concepts, and understand God's actions on the basis of what the study of God's character as revealed in Christ revealed.

Regarding Jesus' revealing the principle that when God withdraws His protection, bad things happen:

1.Since we've been told that everything that man can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ while here in the flesh, then Jesus must have revealed this principle somewhere, right? The only alternative to this would be that the principle is not true. Or Ellen White was mistaken that Christ revealed everything that man can know about God.

2.Regarding Jerusalem, Jesus said He would have gathered them up as a hen gathers its chicks. This is in the present tense that He spoke. He wasn't speaking about something He was going to do in the future. He would have protected them right then. They refused the protection, and their house was left to them desolate.

From the first point, we know there must be *some* example of this principle. If you don't like the example I've suggesting, you're free to suggest a better one.



I think everyone knows what "can know" means.



This isn't an absence here. She made the clear statement that everything that man can know about God was revealed by Christ. This is a positive assertion, not the absence of something.

Regarding your assertion that Christ did not reveal the wrath of God, I think you're mistaken. First of all, all man can know about God was revealed by Jesus Christ. The wrath of God is certainly something that one can know about God. Regarding where Jesus Christ revealed this, above all He did so on the cross.

Hmm. I wrote a post about capital punishment, and it just disappeared. So here's a shorter version.



Since no one was ever without sin except Jesus, by this logic capital punishment should never happen, since Jesus elected not to do so, and He's the only one who could, by your logic.



If God's law had conflicted with Roman law, Jesus would not have complied with Roman law. So if it had been God's will that the woman be stoned, Jesus would certainly have done that. God's will was that the woman be saved, not destroyed.

the da quote above sounds so contradictory to the context that i had to post the context.

i missed the part where it was supposed to turn out to be a blessing. perhaps you could point it out. whatever might have been meant how does that change the fact that God gave the israelites what they wanted and not what was His will?

so for you there is no possibility. that was the question. the passages i posted was in regard to 106907 and your statement here:

i merely provided more examples of how God gave people what they wanted even tho it was not His will.




that is your issue. it has nothing to do with me. "perverted desires" is your invention, also, according to how you view things.



how did you see this as answering my question about the specific commandments against stealing and coveting?

Besides the example I gave you,
you said,
Would you be saying that at first you thought it was absurd whereas now you think your comment has been proven wrong?

Teresaq, in light of the topic of this thread, do you see a contradiction in the way Jesus handled the situation in relation to the woman caught in the act of adultery and the way He handled the situation in relation to Moses and the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer? If not, please explain why. Thank you.

Here's the part that sounds like a blessing to me. Having such a king leading the people would be nearly identical to Moses.

17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
17:20 That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left: to the end that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

You asked, "Whatever might have been meant how does that change the fact that God gave the israelites what they wanted and not what was His will?" I don't see God compromising with sin in this case. Wanting a godly king to lead them was not a sin. Or, do you know of a quote that says otherwise. I know it wasn't God's ideal for them, but was having a king a sin in and of itself?

kland said it wasn't God's will. "God gave the Israelites what they wanted and not what was His will."

He didn't say anything about sin. If you want to ask a question about sin, that's fine, but why not answer the question that you were asked on the way to asking your question?

(Please pardon my butting in, MM. I didn't think you would mind.)