just dealing with the polygamy part for the moment, it is interesting that you do not consider it a sin.
Exo 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

just because i might be legally married to 10 men at the same time, how do you figure i didnt committ adultery starting with the second husband, not to mention the thought that preceded the act? committing adultery is a sin, is it not? or do we humans decide what sin is? or is that an ok sin in Gods sight?

just curious how the reasoning goes here.

But you do. You've quoted the flood to support this idea.



We haven't spoken much of 5, but we have spoken of 4 in detail, and you have said on several occasions that there are things about God which Jesus Christ did not reveal.



Anything contrary to God's character, or the principles of His law, the principle of love, is evil. Anything contrary to the principles which Jesus Christ taught and lived is evil.



I said simply, "In the sense that Satan is the author of sin and all its results, yes. One of the purposes of the GC is to reveal that God is not responsible for any evil that happens." Since Satan is the author of sin and all its results, and since death and destruction are results of sin, it follows that Satan is the author of death and destruction, and thus responsible for it.



It looks to me like you're simply re-asking what you asked above. My answer is right above your questions.

I'm a bit curious here. I have been asserting that I believe God is the restorer. Is it your point of view that this idea is incorrect, and you are citing the Flood as evidence that this idea is incorrect?

Ok, since we're doing one point at a time, let's start with the one I raised. If Jesus is culpable for the destruction of the pigs, because He permitted the evil angels to do what they did to the pigs, then, by the same logic, God is culpable for all evil, since no evil occurs except as God gives permission.

Regarding Moses and the sabbath-breakers, it appears to me that you and I both agree that your view of what happened in the OT is contrary to what Jesus did during His mission on earth. We differ on how to resolve this apparent (or, it seems you would say, actual) contradiction. What I'm suggesting is that if we see Jesus acting during His mission on earth in a way that we perceive to be different than how God acted in the OT, then our view of what God was doing is likely to be wrong. What you are suggesting, it appears to me, is that if we see a contradiction like this what it means is that Jesus Christ did not reveal all that man can know of God.



This is a red herring, since nobody believe God "caved in" to pressure. And I'm sure you know this is a red herring as well, since you are aware that no one here is suggesting that God "caved in to pressure." Let's leave out the red herrings, OK?



No, not at all. It seemed to me that you had the idea that because God permits something means the thing permitted is not sin. In order to disprove this idea, I brought out these examples known to be sin.

We know, for example, that divorce (if not on the grounds of unfaithfulness) is sin. We also know that idolatry is sin, which is what the Israelites were essentially guilty of in wanting to have some other king than God. They were guilty of breaking the first commandment as well. Also the tenth. And that polygamy is sin made clear by the SOP statements cited previously, such as the one stating that polygamy is a violation of God's law (which is the definition of sin).



Jesus answered this question, which has be cited for you many times:

M: I do not believe God used violent force to overcome rebellion.

Which, if your past comments reflect current comments, you mean to say that God does use force to overcome rebellion, just not violent force. Is that a reasonable qualifier?



MM, I didn't say anything about "punishment", neither did any of your quotes.

Why did you throw in the word, punishment?

The reasoning goes like this - God permitted polygamy in the law of Moses, therefore, when practiced in accordance with the law it was not a sin. Adultery happens when a married person has sex with a married person they're not married to.

God did not employ violent force to put down rebellion when He used a Flood to punish sinners. Satan uses force and violence - not God.


#4 allows for the fact Jesus didn’t demonstrate everything there is to know about God. He only revealed that which man could comprehend at the time, which means there was plenty about God that man could not understand about God. Jesus plainly said so. “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.”


I do not understand how your answer addresses the following questions:

1. Are you suggesting things like the Flood are evil?
2. Are you suggesting Satan is the one who employed the forces of nature to cause the death and destruction related to the Flood?
3. Or, are you suggesting sin is what caused the forces of nature to destroy the planet and to kill sinners?
4. And, are you suggesting God had nothing to do with the Flood?


I do not understand how your answer addresses the following questions:

1. In what sense was God acting as a “restorer” when He withdrew His protection and permitted the forces of nature to destroy the world and to kill sinners?
2. What did He restore?
3. What was restored when the planet was destroyed and when sinners were killed?


You and I interpret and apply Ellen’s insight regarding the “restorer”. Yes, I totally believe God is a restorer in the sense He is longsuffering and not willing that any should perish unnecessarily. He leaves no stone unturned in His tireless efforts to woo sinners to Jesus, to embrace Him as their personal Friend and Savior. But there is a limit, a threshold beyond which sinners cannot pass and still be savable. When that point is reached, when they fill up the cup of wrath, God is compelled to act. In the Bible such acts are referred to as – “His strange act”. But God is not a destroyer in the same sense Satan is. Listen:

Genesis
6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Ezekiel
28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

Let’s back up even further because I still don’t know what you believe about it. Please answer the following question so I can begin to understand your point of view. Were the pigs safe and sound before Jesus gave the evil angels permission to drown them?


I agree with your explanation above, however, it does not answer my questions. Unless, of course, you are implying God did not command Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer. Is this what you are saying? If not, then please answer the following questions:

1. Why do you think God commanded Moses to kill the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer?
2. Why did He take the risk of being misunderstood?
3. Why didn’t He take the risk of sharing His true feelings about capital punishment?
4. What would have happened if God had simply told them the truth about capital punishment instead of commanding Moses to kill sinners?


I did not intend for my question to constitute a red herring. I’m offended by your accusation. Nevertheless, I’ll rephrase the comment and question. I do not believe God ever gave sinners permission to practice things contrary to His law. Do you agree?


Are you suggesting God gave the Jews permission to transgress the law when He allowed them to have more than one wife and to have a king?


Are you implying that, yes, God gave them permission to sin because of the hardness of their hearts?

No.


It is a qualifier. Listen:

Matthew
25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Hebrews
10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

God used a non-violent, non-forceful flood?



#4 says "Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know about God," so what you're writing is clearly false, unless you're somehow distinguishing between "revealed" and "demonstrated."



"Jesus Christ revealed all that man can know about God" does not mean "Jesus Christ only revealed that which man could comprehend at the time."



“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” does not mean "I have not revealed everything man can know about God."



I said one thing, and you asked questions which as far as I can tell had nothing to do with what I said, so I restated what I said. It doesn't seem to me that I wasn't discussing the things you asked about.



I think we're at a dead end here. You're asked me questions. I answered the questions. You reasked them. I pointed out I answered them. You're asking them again. Maybe we should skip this point, as it doesn't look like we're getting anywhere.

Are you asking these questions because you don't believe God was acting as a restorer in doing these things?



This isn't at all what "restorer" means. What you've written has nothing at all to do with restoration. Restore means " to bring back to or put back into a former or original state."



"Satan is the destroyer. The Lord is the restorer." does not mean "God is the destroyer, but not in the same sense as Satan."



I was pointing out that by your logic (this is irrespective of my beliefs) if Jesus was culpable for the destruction of the pigs (because He permitted it to happen) then God is culpable for all evil (because He permitted it to happen).



If you agree with my explanation, then there's no need for me to answer your questions. My explanation explains this. The point of the explanation is that I don't agree with your whole approach. Rather than coming to the conclusion that your ideas must be mistaken, because they lead to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is not a full and complete revelation of God, that Jesus Christ did not reveal all that God can know about God, that Jesus Christ is not just like the God of the OT, you conclude that Jesus Christ did not reveal all that man can be known about God.

What I'm saying is that if we have an idea, and that idea conflicts with what Jesus Christ revealed (i.e., what He lived and taught) then our idea must be mistaken. Once we are convinced our idea is mistaken, *then* steps can be taken to ascertain as to why. It's the conviction that the idea is mistaken that's the important thing, not the reason why it's mistaken.



I didn't say anything about your question being a red herring. I said your statement that you do not believe that God caved in to pressure is a red herring. It is a red herring because nobody believes that God caved into pressure, and you know this to be the case, so there's no reason for you to make this statement.



Do you mean like saying, "It's OK if you break My law? I don't mind?" Are you suggesting someone thinks this?



I didn't say anything whatsoever about God's giving permission to transgress the law. I didn't speak of "giving permission" at all. I spoke of God's permitting it. This is what the Scripture says:





Same comment.

i would suggest, my brother, that you are getting on very dangerous ground here.

God allows us to live. does that mean that we do not sin?
God keeps the serial killer alive, does that mean that He does not see what the serial killer is doing as of the most heinous of sins?