Tom, I addressed these kinds of questions in my comments above. Here is what I wrote about it:

"I would agree with you that God had nothing to do with it accept for the obvious fact He is intimately involved in ensuring it plays out in precisely the way He is willing to allow, which means He is working hard to prevent it from playing out differently than He is willing to allow."

"I agree with you, though, that there are times when God doesn't directly cause things to happen Himself, that instead He merely allows others to cause it to happen. But just because He isn't involved in making it happen it doesn't mean He isn't intimately involved in making sure things do not go beyond what He is willing to allow."

What is it about these insights that make you wonder if I think God "wants" the kind of things you named above to happen?

What do you think motivates God to allow the kinds of things you named above to happen? Why doesn't He work to prevent them from happening? Isn't it possible to prevent evil men and angels from hurting good and innocent people without violating their rights and freedoms?

The most important thing to you is that God is in charge. The most important thing to me is His character.

You see that God does different things, depending on the case, sometimes acting in a way that's indistinguishable from someone evil, and sometimes not. You don't see that actions performed make any difference, but only who is performing these actions.



Here's what was said before:



To this you reacted that what uninformed sinners believe doesn't matter, only what God believes. I disagree with this idea. As to your point that if God thinks of something differently than someone else, such as an "uninformed sinner," we should agree with God, I agree, but not for the reason I think you would cite. I think you would say we should agree with God because He's God, as opposed to an uninformed sinner. I would say we should agree with God because what God says is the truth. Iow, the important thing is the truth itself, not who's speaking.



I've suggested that God doesn't intervene because of issues of freedom and the Great Controversy. What reason do you give? Surely you don't find fault with God's non-intervention. Do you see some reason for God's non-intervention other than what I suggested?



I never claimed that Jesus revealed everything that could possibly happen while here in the flesh. I've said that Christ revealed all that could be know of God while here in the flesh. I've explained that this has to do with His character.

In terms of Christ's having the power to make something out of nothing, in addition to the miracles of turning water into wine, and the loaves and the fishes, there are also the healing miracles. How did Christ instantly heal lepers, if not through the power of God's word? Perhaps the best examples of God's power to create are whenever someone was converted. No one is born again except by the power of God's word. There is also the resurrection, which is yet another demonstration of God's creative power.



I've been trying to explain that you're asking the wrong question, IMO! This has been my whole point. To answer your question, along the lines you've asked, is to give credence to your approach. I'm trying to communicate that I disagree with your approach.

There's more than a thousand similar events. The OT is filled with violence. I've explained many of these events, and each time you just come up with another one. That's not going to lead anywhere. I've tried to communicate principles which can be used to analyze any case.

Your idea is that God acts differently on a case by case basis. My idea is that He always acts consistently with His character, as revealed by Jesus Christ. So when Scripture says that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, I know there's an explanation which fits with what Jesus Christ revealed. Similarly with any other incidents. God always acts like Jesus Christ did, without exception. How exactly God does this is not so important as the conviction that God does do this.

Again, that you think it's possible (indeed, certain, from your point of view) that God could act differently than Jesus Christ is the crux of our disagreement.



The SOP tells us that all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of His Son. Yes, I believe this is true! You've been trying to disprove this by two methods.

1.You ask where Jesus Christ revealed certain things, mostly violent actions.
2.You point out there were things which Jesus Christ said that the disciples could not bear.

I don't think these arguments are convincing. I believe Jesus Christ was a full and complete revelation of the Father. When we've seen Jesus Christ, we've seen the Father. In fact, we can *only* know the Father through Jesus Christ.



Explanation is a subset of revelation, so I don't accept this as a valid dichotomy. Iow, when the SOP says that Christ revealed all man can know about God, this includes everything Christ said as well as what He did.



The point is simply that your statement that the fact that Jesus Christ never appeared in the Father's presence while here in the flesh is proof that His sinful flesh would have incinerated is fallacious. This is no proof at all. Whether or not Jesus Christ could have gone to Mars is irrelevant, which I can't believe you don't realize. This is simply an example to point out the invalidity of your argument. It's not a valid argument that a think could not exist because it didn't.



Instead of "avoided" a much better choice of words would be "missed." You've "avoided" far more points than I've raised than I have you, but I've never labeled your "avoiding" as such; I simply reask my question.



There is nothing to suggest this "therefore." Even if we accept as true that because Jesus Christ was made to be sin, that He could not have appeared in the unveiled presence of God, it doesn't follow that the reason this should be so is because He would "be consumed by the firelight of His glory and brightness." Where is there any evidence that this is a physical issue?

If we look at the actual DA statement, we see she says the same thing which gives life to the righteous slays the wicked, so this cannot be a primarily physical issue. Also the very next sentence says that Jesus Christ came to reveal the character of God, which explains that the "light of the glory of God" means "revelation of God's character" rather than "firelight."

The glory of the stars, sun, and moon is their testimony to their Creator.



I explained this in the comments about the water being under pressure. Previously I explained this in great detail, including links to Creationist sites as well as SOP and Scripture statements.



You didn't make a point.



You omitted it too, so I can't respond to it without going back. I having some connection problems, so can't do that right now.



I don't follow this. Please explain yourself.



Same comment. I'm not following you. Please explain yourself.



The difference is that under one paradigm, destruction occurs when God ceases to do something He was doing, or doesn't prevent some destructive thing from occurring, whereas in the other paradigm, God Himself does the destructive thing.



I don't know what you're asking here.



It's necessary for Satan to be given the opportunity to make his case. This is the only way the principles of God and Satan, and the principles of their respective governments, can be made known.

What you wrote indicates this. You say that God ensures things play out in a certain way, that He works hard to prevent things from working otherwise. Therefore He works to ensure the child is abused, to ensure the holocaust takes place. Is this really what you mean to say?



I've answered this several times, MM. I don't understand why you're still asking me this.



Not indiscriminately. If it were, God would do so, don't you think?

1. You wrote, “The fact that two results are the same does not mean the causes are the same.” Please use the following passage to explain what you mean:



These are the passages you cited. I'm not sure what you want to know about these. God made the world to act in accordance with certain laws. I think this is what "God caused" means, if that's what you're asking about.

God sees and knows the difference. That’s what matters to me. This tells me tons about His character and kingdom.


Since God does not believe He used force or violence in destroying sinners in a Flood neither do I. God said it, I believe it. I totally disagree with anybody who says otherwise.


I don’t understand it, especially in light of the following promises:


In these promises God makes it clear that He will bless them abundantly and that He will not allow their enemies to harm them. If the GC forces God to allow evil men and angels to harm His faithful and obedient people, why, then, did God promise not to allow it?


You are, of course, entitled to interpret the Bible as you wish, but I do not agree that the things you named above demonstrate how God created everything out of nothing. The things you named involved changes to things that already existed. Satan has the power to make similar changes to existing things. But he doesn’t have the power to make something out of nothing. Neither did Jesus demonstrate this unique, exclusive aspect of God’s character and kingdom. Again, this is just one of many aspects of God that Jesus did reveal while He was here.


My approach is quite simple, namely: 1. God commanded Moses to kill sinners. 2. Why did He command Moses to kill sinners? You answer this comment and question by saying God acted in harmony with Jesus’ example in the NT. This non-answer leads me to conclude you believe God did not command Moses to kill sinners. Is this what you believe?


I have never attempted to disprove what Ellen wrote about it. I have demonstrated that your interpretation of what she said is incorrect.


But I see nowhere in His actions or teachings Jesus demonstrating God commanding Moses to kill sinners. You view this fact as evidence God did not command Moses to kill sinners; whereas, I view it as evidence there are aspects of God’s character and kingdom Jesus did not reveal or demonstrate while here in the flesh.


Your Mars example doesn’t prove your point, Tom. Instead, it proves my point. Jesus’ sinful flesh would not have allowed Him to visit Mars without a special suit. Why? Because He would have been incinerated. Sinful flesh cannot survive on Mars. It’s too hot. The same is true of sinful flesh and the firelight of God’s glory.


Moses’ experience on the mount is proof that sinful flesh cannot abide in the firelight of God’s glory and presence without being incinerated. Otherwise, why did God say so? Light can either give life or take it. Whether one lives or dies in the presence of God’s firelight depends on whether they are clothed with sinless flesh or sinful flesh. The same sun that melts wax hardens clay. The following passage demonstrates the point:

But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. . . But wherever men came before God while willfully cherishing evil, they were destroyed. At the second advent of Christ the wicked shall be consumed "with the Spirit of His mouth," and destroyed "with the brightness of His coming." 2 Thess. 2:8. The light of the glory of God, which imparts life to the righteous, will slay the wicked. {DA 107.4}


None of the sites or references you posted refutes the idea that God employed the pent up forces of nature to cause the Flood that killed sinners and destroyed the planet. Even if we see it from your point of view, namely, that God merely allowed these forces to cause death and destruction, He still had to work hard to prevent them from exceeding His predetermined limits. In this sense He was forced to regulate them, which is not significantly different than saying He employed them to cause death and destruction.


You deleted it. Please include it so I can readdress it.


I included everything you did. When things are working properly please address it. Thank you.


The two paradigms I had in mind are 1) God withdrawing His protection and allowing the pent up forces of nature to implode upon itself killing sinners in the process, and 2) God withdrawing His protection and allowing Satan to manipulate the forces of nature to kill sinners. Please answer the original question above with these two paradigms in mind. Thank you.

Also, please compare the following passages and explain how and why they are different:



I asked about the two different paradigms. You answered my question in relation to the first but not the second. I numbered them for your convenience. I also reworded the post above to make it clearer.


Again, how does this idea fit in with what God promised in Deut. 28:1-14 (quoted toward the top of this post)?

Your "therefore" above does not follow from what I wrote. Why do you think God allows such terrible things to happen? Why doesn't He prevent such things from happening? Do you agree with me that God works to prevent things from exceeding the limits He has established?


Your answer is hardly satisfying, Tom. It makes it sound like you believe God allows these terrible kinds of things to happen to satisfy Satan's need to hurt innocent people.


God never does something indiscriminately. He is discerning and discriminating in everything He does. The fact He can forcibly prevent evil men and angels from doing things to good and innocent people that would exceed the limits He is willing to allow, without violating their rights and freedoms or acting uncharacteristically, suggests to me there are good reasons why He tolerates the terrible things that happen. Your that God is forced to tolerate such terrible things so that the principles of Satan's government can be plainly seen as evil and wrong is wrong on so many levels.

But I hear you saying, and correct me if I've misunderstood you, that God simply withdraws His protection and allows these kinds of things to happen, and more often than not, you clarify this position by saying it means God allows Satan to do such things. Whereas, Ellen is clearly saying "God causes" (as opposed to allows) them to happen.

It doesn't seem to me this would say anything good about His character or kingdom ("this" being your perception that God doesn't do anything different than someone evil, and that He alone knows the difference).



I also disagree, but not only with people who use the words "violence" and "force." I also disagree with those who describe God as acting using force and violence, even if they use other words that "force" or "violence" to do so.



What don't you understand? Regarding Deut. 28, how do you explain Job?



They demonstrate creative power, which is what is necessary. Remember we're dealing with God's character.



Satan cannot heal. He can only remove symptoms, which he is responsible for in the first place. Also one of the examples I gave was of conversion, which Satan also cannot do. Also conversion involves bringing light out of darkness, something from nothing, as in creation. By the power of God's word, He creates. The calming of the storm would be another example of God's creative power. God speaks, and the thing which He speaks is.



I suppose you mean that Jesus did not reveal. The SOP says that all that man can know of God was revealed by Jesus Christ. I think she is right. I think you're misunderstanding what it means to say that all that one can know of God was revealed. I understand this to be speaking of God's character. That is, what she said means the same as, "All that man can know of God's character was revealed by Jesus Christ."



I believe your understanding of what God did in relation to Moses is in error, and, more importantly, that your whole approach to the problem is in error. I've indicated what I believe is the right approach several times.



I don't think so. She wrote "all that man can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His son," or, to be precise:



You argue against this idea by presenting things which you perceive to be things about God which Jesus Christ did not reveal. This is what you've been doing all along. Please notice I'm not interpreting what she wrote her, but simply stating it.

Now *you* have suggested that she didn't really mean what she said, but she meant that some of the things which man needs to know or can know of God were revealed by Jesus Christ, and limit these things to a small subset of what she actually said, including just a few men (Jesus Christ's disciples) and limit it to a specific point in time (when Jesus Christ lived).

So you are disagreeing with what she actually wrote, or, perhaps more accurately, did not believe she meant what she actually said, but meant something else instead. I would be in error because I believe what she actually wrote is correct.

Actually, I should restate this, because this is the crux of the matter. I believe what she wrote is accurate, as it stands, and does not need to be reinterpreted along the lines you have suggested (or any other lines).



I view it as evidence that your view of things is incorrect. I disagree with your view because it disagrees with what Jesus Christ revealed of God, and with the SOP statement which says that Christ revealed all that man can know of God. You are using your argument to disprove this statement: "All that man can know of God's character was revealed by Jesus Christ." This is exactly what you are doing by saying "There are aspects of God’s character and kingdom Jesus did not reveal."

It should be easy to see that "All that man can know of God's character was revealed by Jesus Christ" is contradicted by "There are aspects of God’s character and kingdom Jesus did not reveal."



MM, this is a point of logic. The point is you cannot prove that something is the case because it didn't happen. Do you really not understand this? If not, we can forget it. It doesn't seem like you're getting the point. It's just a logic error.



God didn't say anything about Moses being incinerated. The glory that God spoke of was His character, which God makes clear:



This is speaking of God's character! Nothing could be clearer. The SOP comments:



The SOP uses this very passage to prove that God's glory is His character. She actually refers to this passage many times, and always she refers to it in terms of God's character, never as "firelight" which "incinerates."

The spiritual truth revealed to Moses by hiding in the cleft of the rock was that no one can take in all of God's character at once; it is His goodness which is overwhelming. It's not a physical issue, but a character one. We cannot discern His goodness in one fell swoop because to do so would be too much for us. In seeing God as He is, we would see ourselves as we are, which we cannot bear. So God reveals Himself to us little by little, as we are willing. His character, His goodness, leads us to repentance, which allows us to see more of His character, as our repentance deepens.



God did employ these pent up forces. This is what I've been saying.



I agree with the idea that He was forced to regulate them, however. I think that a significant difference is communicated in the way we put things. Regardless of the words used, my point is that it is sin which is destructive force, and not God. God is restorer. Sin, or Satan, is the destroyer. Because God allows the destructive forces of sin to destroy does not make God a destroyer. If God destroyed without reference to sin or Satan (i.e. causing destruction or death to happen which would not have happened apart from sin or Satan) that would make Him a destroyer.



No, you never made a point. There was no point to delete. You asked me to explain something I said according to passages you cited. You didn't make any point.



I did. I went back to get the passage, and made a guess as to what you were wanting to ask, and addressed it.



I haven't been arguing these are different paradigms. This is basically the same paradigm. The only difference is what causes the destruction, but the overall working of things is the same. God withdraws His protection and destruction comes.

Yes it does. You wrote that God ensures that things do not play out in a certain way, that He works hard to prevent things from working otherwise. If this is the case, then God is working hard to make sure the abused child is abused (as otherwise, this would be a thing which worked out differently, which you say God works hard to prevent), and similarly for the holocaust, and any other evil thing.



You've asked this several times, and I've answered.



Yes, I agreed with this.



What? I've not said anything to suggest this. Evil things happen because evil being purpose to do them. This doesn't have to do with God. If God prevented every evil thing from happening, God would have to prevent all sin from happening; He would have to take away all the free will that an evil person has. I don't understand what's unsatisfactory about this answer, nor why you would interpret this as having something to do with Satan's need to hurt innocent people. The issue is not a need to hurt people, but a revelation of the principles of the respective governments. Ellen White often comments on this. Here's an example:





I guess you didn't understand the point. The point is if it were possible for God to prevent all suffering, don't you think God would do so?



Of course there are good reasons. I've told you what these reasons are.



Well at least I have good company! Please see the SOP quote above. I'm curious, if the reasons I've suggested (freedom of choice, to resolve the GC) are not the reasons that God allows evil to occur, what do you think the reasons are?

Scripture does the same thing. For example, Scripture says that God sent the fiery serpents upon the Israelites, that God killed Saul, that God destroyed Jerusalem, that God sends strong delusion upon those who have rejected Him, whereas all of these are examples of God's allowing certain things to occur. Since the Universe is God's, and God is the first cause to everything, there is a sense in which one could say that God causes everything which happens to occur.

Regarding God's causing the coal and oil to burn, I recall reading that she said something to the effect that as man diminished after the Flood, that God put these vast reserves of energy in store for the benefit of man. So the oil burning and coal etc. were things God was doing for man's benefit.