Do you believe God created beings in such a way that their life depends on them doing certain things (i.e. eating, drinking, breathing, etc)? Or, do you believe their life also depends upon God keeping them alive? Whatever your answer is please explain what God meant in Gen 3:21 where He says, If we don't bar access to the tree of life they will eat of it and live forever as sinners.

i think toms points are worth considering, if for no other reason than that the papacy, not to mention time before, believed they were doing the will of God in persecuting and killing millions who believed differently.

along the same lines is the question, is God a punishing God or a God Who restrains evil? is He constantly protecting us from circumstances we are completely oblivious to. one thing i dont see in the punishing God view is His ceaseless protection of us. since our view of God determines our actions, how we treat others, that seems to be an important question.

your conclusion, in my opinion, leaves itself wide open to justify any actions because "God would do it". if tom is right and God does not go against what He orders, then it behooves us to consider that and restudy, methinks.

These parables were spoken after the solemn lessons given in the twenty-third and twenty-fourth chapters of Matthew, when Christ dwelt particularly upon His second coming, and revealed things which would transpire before His second appearing in the clouds of heaven. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem," Christ said, "thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not" [Matthew 23:37]. {16MR 275.3}
In this lamentation over Jerusalem is given the assurance of protection to all who will come unto Christ. He will accept and protect them, poor, defenseless, dependent, even as the hen spreads her protecting wings over her brood. If her chickens wander from her, the hen has a peculiar call by which she warns them of peril or storm. If they will heed the danger signal, and can reach their mother's protecting wings, they find warmth and safety, for she will defend them while she has any life. She forgets herself, and will give her life in defending her helpless little flock. {16MR 275.4}
What a touching figure is this! What an idea it gives us of the watchful care of Christ for all who trust in Him. Christ longed to gather Israel under His mediatorial wings. He longed to hear their voice calling upon Him, and saying: "Hold up my going in thy paths, that my footsteps slip not. I have called upon Thee, for Thou wilt hear me, O God: incline Thine ear unto me, and hear my speech. Show Thy marvelous loving kindness, O Thou that savest by Thy right hand them which put their trust in Thee from those that rise up against them. Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of Thy wings" [Psalms 17:5-8]. {16MR 276.1}
[Psalms 36:5-11, quoted.]
"I will abide in Thy tabernacle for ever: I will trust in the covert of Thy wings" [Psalm 61:4]. {16MR 276.2}
But Christ could not do for Israel all that He desired to do, because they would not respond to His invitations. "Ye would not," He said. Their will was stubborn and unyielding. His last words to the impenitent nation were, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see Me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord" [Matthew 23:38, 39].--Ms 92a, 1898. Ellen G. White Estate October 30, 1986. Entire Manuscript. {16MR 276.3}

do you have a picture of what that would look like? and this one? lets take this one:
are you saying that God is the evil spirits here?

one final thought:
Today . . . heavenly messengers are passing through the length and breadth of the land, seeking to comfort the sorrowing, to protect the impenitent, to win the hearts of men to Christ. We cannot see them personally; nevertheless they are with us, guiding, directing, protecting. . . . {ML 303.2}

MM, you should know what force and violence are. If you set someone on fire, that's violence. If you threaten to set someone on fire unless they do something you want them to do, that's force.



I think you're asking the wrong question. What I've asserted is that God does not use force or violence to achieve His ends, whether to punish or overcome rebellion or forgive sinners or anything else.

As explained in "The Destruction of Jerusalem," in "The Great Controversy," God withdraws when rejected beyond a certain point. Force and violence may result as a result of this withdrawal, as evil beings use force and violence. However, *God* does not use force or violence.



God withdraws His protection, which entails bad things happening as a result of either nature, evil beings, or one's health. I explained the principles involved in a lot of detail earlier in the this thread. The exact application doesn't matter. It's the general principles involved that are important.

The bottom line of our disagreement has to do with our paradigms, and with how we perceive God to be. You perceive that God is capable of using force and acting violently. You label this as something else, so I'm not talking about that, about the label. I'm talking about God's actual actions, of setting people on fire, or inflicting them with boils, or whatever. You see that God is capable of doing these things (i.e., His character allows it) and that He will resort to these methods if necessary to get His way. I disagree. I don't believe He acts any differently than how Jesus acted while here with us in the flesh, nor that He uses any methods different than those which Jesus used.

Didn't that fire, which consumed 51 men, come from God/Jesus?

Do you believe that God can choose an action for which there are more pleasant alternatives? IOW, could God choose option A if there exists an option B that was more pleasant?

I would say that Satan would die immediately if God does not provide him with life. (And that applies to every other creature.)

Now consider this angle: Which option results in more pain and suffering for an individual?

a) Be separated from God through sin and immediately cease to exist.
b) Be separated from God through sin and continue to live in sin for 6000 years.

Doesn't God sometimes change His actions depending on the context? He publicly denounced some Pharisees as blind guides, but He didn't treat Nicodemus that way. Jesus went to the house of Zacchaeus the thief, but kicked Adam and Eve out of their house when they stole. More importantly, Jesus came to die for sinners the first time around, but He's not going to do the same thing the next time, and definitely not the next time after that.

The Samaritans would not receive Jesus a certain time because he "had His face" towards Jerusalem.



The SOP comments:





Of course, but He never acts contrary to His principles in so doing, principles such as those described here:





He'll display the same spirit.



The cross reveals the heart of God, a heart which doesn't change.

When war broke out in heaven, wasn't the devil and the one third of the devil's followers forcefully ejected from heaven by Michael (Christ) and His loyal angels?

this thread is for the plagues of any kind and i considered starting another thread for this but it all seems interrelated so ill put it here.

satan was lucifer, the covering cherub who veiled Gods glory. there are two on the mercy seat so it makes one wonder who the second covering cherub is, but that is beside the point.

The glory of the Eternal Father is enshrouding his Son. The brightness of his presence fills the city of God, and flows out beyond the gates, flooding the whole earth with its radiance. {4SP 479.2}

He sees another now standing near to the Father, veiling his glory....{4SP 484.2}

the question i have is why was there need to veil Gods glory in heaven? in case someone accidently sinned? or would "erred" be preferred?