Tom,

I don't see you as providing a satisfactory answer to any of my points/arguments.
First, I didn't find any answers in your previous posts to my first set of questions.
As to the other three points, I would say the following:
1) Your point is (or should be, to make sense) that the wicked are destroyed by their own sin. If they are destroyed by nature's forces or any random disaster, they are not being destroyed by their own sin, in the same way that if a righteous dies in a disaster he is not being destroyed because of his own sin. (Some of the plagues, by the way, will involve the forces of nature.)
2) It does not make any sense to say that God didn't cease to counteract the immediate effects of sin in the case of the Jews but ceased to counteract the immediate effects of sin in the case of Herod, since, according to you, He gave up both to the results of their own choices.
3) It's true that we have discussed God's commands to kill in the past, but if memory serves me well you just deny that God gave these commands and imply that the actions of those who killed were wrong, or altogether sinful - although God not only approved but rewarded them. ???

People, whether wicked or righteous, can be destroyed because of the sin of another as well. All destruction and death is due to sin, but not, in this life, is it necessarily the case that one suffers because of one's own sin. Christ is a perfect example of this. Job is another example.



I've made no argument that the wicked are destroyed by their own sin.

What I've been arguing is that God does not directly do things to people to cause them excruciating pain and/or violently kill them.

Regarding the plagues involving forces of nature, that seems very likely to me. However, I don't see God as using the forces of nature like we would use a laser, for example, to hone in on the enemy and inflict them with some disaster. Rather, God, in accordance with the desire of the wicked, withdraws Himself from their care (takes Himself our of their life) which results in maladies of different forms.



Since you gave no reason as to why this doesn't make sense, all I can do is respond, "It does to!"



No, this isn't right. But this is another discussion. It's too involved to give a simple response.

To summarize, once again, I see no reference whatsoever to Jesus Christ. I think we have no hope of understanding God's actions in these events apart from the revelation of Jesus Christ. According to the SOP, all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ (the context of this statement is dealing with the time He was hear in the flesh).

I think the whole approach here is wrong. Rather than looking at individual incidents in Scripture where violent or hurtful acts are ascribed to God, our starting point should be to build a model of God's character based on the revelation of Christ. *After* having an idea as to what God is like, according to what Christ has revealed, *then* take a look at these uncharacteristic incidents and try to come to an understanding as to what happened. I think that's an approach that can work.

I'll be waiting for it.

i disagree. anyone reading through page by page will see that instead of taking it systematically it skipped around with other incidents being brought up and going off in other directions.

i really dont think, if this were a job, anything would ever be accomplished. i mean if i started doing the dishes then let someone distract me into making the bed, then another came along wanting lunch, and on and on, what would i have done by the end of the day but a whole lot of started jobs and a bigger mess than when i started.

i dont disagree that starting with Jesus is probably the best approach and is the one recommended by ellen white, i still believe that taking incidents one by one till a conclusion is reached even if we ended up with:
a believes God did it
b thinks it might be this or it could be that-so doesnt know for sure
c believes God did not do it.

in the end we each have reasons for believing what we do. some are honestly going to believe God did certain acts because the evidence they have is that He did.

i still think we can take them one by one and learn things about God without anyone having to defend any position. but then i have been known to be an idealist.

Arnold, regarding 2 Kings, regarding the phrase "fire from heaven"



From this it can be seen that one possibility for what happened in 2 Kings 1 is that Elijah was one place and the others were in another. The place where the others were got struck by lightening. God knew this would happen, and informed Elijah of it. God could have prevented the lightening from occurring, but chose not to, because of their rejection of Him.

This is just one possibility that comes to mind. But, as I've pointed out, the actual implementation of the principle doesn't matter. The principle is that sin is destructive in a myriad of ways, and God protects us from its destructive power. If he lifts His protections, the bad effects of sin can impact us in literally thousands of ways. God protects us all the time from a thousand different things, of which we are ignorant. Because of our ignorance, we don't recognize our need of His protection, nor the destructive power of sin.

Again, I hasten to add, I don't think this manner of proceeding is likely to be fruitful, for the reasons I've pointed out. It's like Teresa pointed out in her example of Calvinistic predestination (or my point regarding Piaget). The differences in our positions has to do with a difference in paradigm. My view of what God does, things which are consistent with His character, is restricted by what Jesus Christ revealed of Him in His life and teachings.

teresa, I found your post quite confusing. You started out by saying that you disagreed with what I said, which is this:



You wrote:



So this looks like you're agreeing with what I said.

You continued:



so it sounds like you are disagreeing with an idea that we should not consider the incidents at all. But if you'll look at what I wrote, you'll see I didn't suggest this. Instead I said *after* having an idea of what God is like, *then* take a look at these incidents.

Isn't this the same thing you're saying?

Tom,

That's some pretty amazing "natural" lightning that would strike twice in the same place, both times reducing to ashes an entire company of fifty (50) soldiers, and both times missing Elijah who was on the hill above them.

But, you are welcome to put your faith where you like.

Hmm....and while we're at it, why would God ask people to do His "dirty work?" Elijah himself helped to execute the prophets of Baal a few years later. Did he not do this at the prompting of the Holy Spirit, at God's behest, while at the pinnacle of closeness to God and obedience to Him?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I quoted from "The Bible Encyclopedia" from http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/fire.html). They say:



If you choose to believe the fire was something else, as you put it, "But, you are welcome to put your faith where you like."

That lightening would strike the same place twice is not at all unusual. The Empire State building gets struck around 100 times a year.

By chance I came upon the following:



This speaks of 8,000 lightening strikes in a single day.

Regarding being on a hill, if the fifty were in a valley below the hill, and were the highest points around (no trees around them), and Elijah was on the hill, but there were trees around him, it's a lot more likely that they would be hit than that he would. (Granted, that fifty would be hit at once would be quite extraordinary.)

At any rate, this is one possibility, based on the comment I quoted. There may be other possibilities. What I have difficulty with is the idea that God would act contrary to principles so clearly lived and taught by Jesus Christ, and spelled out by the SOP, such as the following:



The SOP tells us that all that we can know of God was revealed in the life and character of His Son (8T 286). The context is speaking of His life in the flesh. Where did Jesus Christ teach or reveal that God would kill those who act contrary to His intentions?

Regarding your question:



To my mind, this phrasing of the question places God's character in an unbecoming light. Do you disagree?

A more straight-forward way of asking the question, to my mind, would be something like the following, "If God is against killing, why would He ask others to kill?"

This has been discussed at length on another thread. This is a more difficult question than the topic of this thread, dealing with the plagues.

I'm not seeing how discussing a more difficult topic would be helpful when the easier one is going on. However, if you would like to start a thread on this (or, better yet, perhaps someone could find the one which was already started), perhaps a discussion might get going on it. It's certainly an interesting question as to why God would ask the Israelites to do some of the things we see in Scripture.

You may quote the encyclopedia if you like. I will quote the Spirit of Prophecy.



First of all, the Empire State Building was the tallest in the world for many years, and has ample reason for being struck so frequently. Similarly, as Elijah was on the hill above the soldiers, he had more chance of being struck than they did.

California is the third largest state in our union, and "Northern California" is a rather large and mountainous region with lots of tall trees, including the tallest trees in the world. So those statistics do not surprise me.


Thank you. That was my point. And it happens TWICE, and it would have happened again, I am sure, if the commander of the third company had not been so humble.


Yes, I disagree. It is as an "optical illusion" that God appears to be in a poor light here. Those who are really in the bad light are ourselves. WE are the dirty ones that God must clean up after. As dirt cannot clean up dirt, so we cannot clean up ourselves. It takes the "Water of Life" and the "blood of the Lamb." And it takes His fire, too.

Now, in more direct answer to your question, here is the magnifying glass:



Considering that He does ask others to kill (as brought out in the above quote), perhaps He is not so against killing as we might think.

Tom, the problem is that your narrow viewpoint on whether or not God kills has become your focus in these other topics as well. It seems impossible to actually get down to the core of the question of the plagues with you until you can understand that God does indeed act in justice. "Vengeance is mine," He says. And the plagues are His vengeance.

Remember when David numbered the people of Israel? Remember that God gave him three choices for punishment? What did David choose? He chose to fall in the hands of the LORD, and not those of his enemies, for he knew the Lord would be merciful. Do you think God would have not honored David's choice? Would He instead have just turned David over to his enemies by "permitting" them to act? (Are not the devil and his angels "enemies"?) Nay. God honored David's request. Here is what Mrs. White says of it:


God is more just and merciful in His punishment of men than Satan is in handing out rewards. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

and were off and running

defending positions

instead of investigating scripture!!