Then please reword them so that I can have them on hand for future reference.

This seems rather hallow. It does seem like you really believe God doesn't use force or violence, but you feel constrained to say this because of certain EGW statements. These statements don't actually change your idea of what happened, but just certain words that you use.

For example, you see no difference between what actually happens when God causes a flood or when Satan does. But you call what Satan does as "violence" and "forceful," but not what God does, even though there's no material difference in what actually happens.



Both matter. What we think about God impacts us profoundly.



This would be true if one disregarded the aspect of freedom. However, I don't know that most people would disregard this. It's sort of a moot point in that Satan has been so successful in misrepresenting God's character, that most people, even Christians, perceive God as having acted very violently, and that He will do so in the future in the end time before Christ's coming, and in the judgment.



So I was a little unpredictable. I suppose that's good. Keep you on your toes.



There's also the miracle of the loaves and fishes.



I'm sorry you feel this way. I would expect you to conclude that the given things did not happen as you perceived they did, if you perceive they happened in some way that would have these events being contrary to things that Jesus Christ lived and taught. I'm pretty sure I have been answering this question, and along these same lines. And it seems to me this is an answer to the question. I'm answer the question "yes," and qualifying the answer, to be clear as to what the "yes" should apply to.



I didn't bring it up. You brought it up as "proof" that Jesus Christ did not reveal all that man can know of God.



Jesus isn't limited to doing something. Jesus Christ also revealed things by His teachings. We are told that all that man can know of God was revealed by the life and character of Jesus Christ. I believe this is true. There is a general principle, which is that when God withdraws, bad things happen. Jesus Christ would not have to reveal every possible scenario in order for us to be understand this truth.



You write, "The proof is in the fact it never happened." It should be evident that this isn't proof at all.

I could just as well argue, "Jesus Christ could not have gone to Mars, because if He had done so, he would have been consumed." and if you asked for proof, I could say, "Well, it never happened." This is no argument at all. There are trillions of things which have never happened. Are you going to adduce as proof that each of these things could not have happened because they didn't?



We've discussed the flood in great detail. I explained to you that the water was under great pressure, and sent you links to websites explaining the physics of it, as well as SOP and Bible texts dealing with this. Given the water was under great pressure (i.e., the water that burst from the great depths, which would later fall back to the earth in the form of torrents of rain), God could either have been preventing this from happening, or predicted that it would, and either scenario would have Him acting in harmony with His character. There may be other scenarios as well that work. I know, for example, there are some people who think that the flood was caused by tinkering around that Satan was doing. I've heard a couple of different versions of this. I see some evidence for this in the SOP, but I'm not convinced that Satan was involved in this directly.



Agreed! If we can't agree on things, at least if we can express another's viewpoint in a way the other finds to be accurate, that's a plus.



It doesn't seem reasonable to me that I should be constrained by certain passages of your choosing to explain what I mean. I should be able to explain what I mean by my own words, and by passages of my choosing.



A big difference in our paradigms is that you perceive God as doing these things, whereas I don't. I don't see these bad things that happen as proceeding in any way from God. These are things contrary to His will, that would never happen if His creatures acted in accordance with His will.

It's not a matter that God is involving Satan in processes or not involving him, but God withdraws His protection, and something Satan is directly involved and sometimes he isn't.



It serves the purpose of revealing Satan's kingdom and character, as well as the consequences of rejecting God and His protection.

deuteronomy 32:39"see now that I even Iam He and no god with me: I kill and I make alive: I wound and I heal" also consider 1 samuel 15:2,3 "thus saith The Lord of hosts I remember that which amalek did to Israel ... smite amalek destroy them all ...man woman and infant ".Saul was rejected by God from being king for only partially fulfilling this.read the account of korah dathan and abiram,numbers 16,where it also says "and there came out a fire from The Lord and consumed the 250 men".in acts 5 annanias and sapphira lied and were punished.in acts 12:23 herod was smitten for his wickedness.the evidence is plain,God is just and merciful,let us not wrest the scriptures as peter admonishes.

Good point.

in Jude we find Sodom and Gomorrah "undergo the punishment of eternal fire".

More specificall - 2 Thess 1 -



Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/quote]

Luke 12
4 ""I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that have no more that they can do.
5 ""But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!

Rev 14
9 Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, ""If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand,

10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy ones AND in the presence of the Lamb.
11 ""And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.''

in Christ,

Bob

In the case of Heb 12 "discipline" that "seems unpleasant" that is "discipline" of the children of God - those He loves -- those He is taking to heaven -- that happens in this life "as needed".

But in the case of "undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" as Jude tells us -- that is another matter entirely.

God raises the wicked dead (so nothing "natural" about this at all). Then judges them then casts them into the Lake of Fire where He "destroys BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell".

Only God could do such a thing.

in Christ,

Bob

Pepperwood and Bobryan, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important subject. It is indeed a "strange act" when our loving and compassionate and longsuffering Lord is compelled to punish sinners.

Let's consider the discipline that was mentioned. Does God do things that Satan would ordinarily be thought of doing in order to discipline His children? Or does God allow His children to suffer unpleasant things which are the results of the choice of others, or perhaps poor decisions that they themselves have made?

In regards to the Scriptures which attribute many negative things to God, it should be remembered that Scripture often presents God as doing that which He permits. For example, the Scriptures say that God killed Saul, that God sent fiery serpents upon the Israelites, that He sends strong delusion, that He destroyed Jerusalem, all things which upon further review were not things at all that God was doing.

Tom, the reason God is portrayed as doing things He allows is for the very reason He, God Himself, is the very one who allowed it to happen in the manner in which it happened. It is no accident that things happen the way they do. 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. There is nothing passive about God's involvement in the things He allows others to do.

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. In this sense, in those types of cases, God is very involved, and His involvement explains why the Bible portrays Him as doing the things He allows others to do. The fact He is the one who is allowing them to do it, all the while making sure they stay within His established limits, demonstrates that God is the one who is in control of what is happening and that He is the one who is in control of the outcome.

MM, are you saying that everything which happens is because that's what God wants? So when a child is abused, that's because God wanted this to happen? Or the holocaust is something God wanted to happen, since He didn't prevent it? When you say that "it is no accident that things happen the way they do," is this what you have in mind?

The outcome is the same, namely, sinners suffers and die. However, the reason why God sometimes causes death and destruction Himself versus why He sometimes allows Satan to do it vary from case to case. Ultimately, though, whether God causes it or whether He allows Satan to cause it, the most important thing for us to understand is the beautiful fact God is the who is in control of what happens and that He is the one who is in control of the outcome.


You turned left whereas I turned right, that is, we are not on the same road. I'm talking about one thing and you're talking about something different. What I'm saying above is that when the opinions of ill informed sinners differ from what God knows to be true then what matters is what God believes and not what ill informed sinners think about it. We need to view things from God's perspective and wholeheartedly reject what ill informed sinners believe about it. Now, if you can acknowledge this point, I would be willing to switch lanes and discuss your point.


No law that I know of would fault God for preventing evil men and angels from hurting good and innocent people. Nor would a jury find Him guilty of infringing upon the rights and freedoms of evil men and angels for intervening and protecting the innocent. Indeed, they would count Him guilty of a grievous crime if He stood by did nothing when it was within His power and ability to prevent it.

No one I know believes it is within the rights and freedoms of evil men and angels to wantonly hurt good and innocent people. For example, when a Good Samaritan intervenes and prevents a rape or a child abduction or a murder, they are hailed as a hero, rather than condemned as a lawbreaker. But if they stand by and do nothing, when it was well within their ability to prevent it, they are counted guilty of a terrible injustice and their name is mud and they are forever ostracized by society.


Again, they were made out of things that already existed, thus, you have yet to demonstrate that Jesus revealed the type of creative power God displayed "in the beginning". This is just one of many things about God that Jesus did not reveal while here in the flesh.


Your "answer" does not answer my question, that's been the problem with your "answer" all along. You've deleted the questions related to this question, so, do you even remember what my questions are? Answering my questions by saying, "Obviously these things did not happen the way you are perceiving for the simple reason Jesus did not do such things while here in the flesh," is actually avoiding answering my question. Saying it didn't happen doesn't explain why the Bible describes it as happening in great detail and crystal clarity.


It is proof you are arguing isn't proof. You keep saying Jesus shared everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh, whereas, Jesus Himself said very clearly there were things He was unable to share, things that the Holy Spirit would share with them after Jesus returned to heaven. This is convincing proof that Jesus did not share everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh. You seem to think otherwise.


Are you agreeing with me, then, that Jesus did not reveal everything there is to know about God while He was here in the flesh, that there were some things about God that He explained rather than demonstrated, and that such explanations are as good as Him revealing it?


Jesus could not have gone to Mars in sinful flesh because sinful flesh cannot survive in such an environment. This is proof He never visited Mars while He was here in the flesh. Also, I couldn't help noticing that you avoided the other point I made, namely, “To sin, wherever found, ‘our God is a consuming fire.’” Jesus was “made to be sin; He bare our sins in his own body”, therefore, He could not appear in the unveiled presence of God without being consumed by the firelight of His glory and brightness. That "glory" is often associated with light is evident in the following passage:

1 Corinthians
15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.


Earlier you wrote, “God destroys . . . by allowing sin/Satan to have its destructive consequences”. Your explanation above does not harmonize with how this principle played out in the Flood. Please describe how you see "sin-Satan" having its-his "destructive consequences" play out in the Flood, especially in light of your comment, "I'm not convinced that Satan was involved in this directly."


Amen!


Fine, but don't leave it at that, at least address the point. Actually, since I'm the one who is interested in how your comment plays out in the passage I posted above (which you omitted here), it seems reasonable for you to at least humor my request. I suspect, though, that in your response to this renewed request, you are going to continue to dismiss it and say nothing pertinent to the point. Please prove me wrong and honor and respect my request. Please!!!


Are you suggesting God never withdraws His protection and permits the forces of nature to kill sinners? And, are you suggesting God never withdraws His protection and allows Satan to manipulate the forces of nature to kill sinners (within His established and enforced limits)? Also, what is the difference, so far as the dynamics of science are concerned, in 1) how and 2) why the forces of nature kill sinners under the two different paradigms named above?


How does this purpose differ under the other paradigm, that is, when God withdraws His protection and allows the forces of nature to kill sinners (assuming you believe this a valid paradigm)?

Also, please explain why you think it is necessary for God to allow Satan to kill sinners. Is it necessary for Satan to be allowed to kill sinners and saints in order for God to win the GC?