Kland, I do not see how the cross symbolizes the seven last plagues. Do you know of any Bible or SOP quotes that say so?

Acts 2 and Romans 4 are to places that spring to mind. Acts 2 is verse 20 something. Romans 4 is verse 24 or 25.

Also Teresa pointed out that Jesus said He could have had legions of angels to defend Him had He so chosen. They had clearly been defending Him (many times Jesus' murder was attempted before the cross) and they clearly stopped defending Him (or else He couldn't have been taken away to be tortured and crucified).

I'm curious. How is it that you don't see that God ceased restraining those who took Jesus away? How could that not be the case?

Are you referring to this?



If so, kland was quoting me. I cited the following from the SOP:



I asked you, "How do you see that the cross enables us to understand the plagues?"

I don't think you responded. kland was re-asking my question, because he was interested in what you would say as well.

Is it OK to do an evil deed depending on the circumstances? What is being overlooked here is that permiting evil things to happen is, in itself, an "evil deed." And since sin entered the universe, God many times doesn't have two options - one good and the other bad, but the two options He has are one bad and the other worse. This subject was already discussed in the past, here, and what I pointed out was that letting Satan live after his rebellion was already a bad thing, and God only did this because the alternative was worse. So, bringing disease and death on people is a bad thing, but, in certain circumstances, like in the episodes of the flood, of Sodom and Gomorrah, of the destruction of the inhabitants of Canaan, of the idolaters at Baal Peor, the people involved were already beyond salvation, and the alternative - letting them to continue living - was worse (for them and for the rest of the world).

No.



This isn't being overlooked. This is simply false. If this were true, then God would be the most evil of all beings, since no evil things happens that He does not permit, which would make Him the champion, by far, of "evil deeds."



Not bad from a moral standpoint. From a moral standpoint, God is never constrained to do evil. He always does good. We see in Jesus Christ very clearly what this means.



This isn't in question. Of course it's better that the people died than the alternative. If the alternative were better, God wouldn't have allowed these things to happen. We can take it for granted that God will always choose the best of the alternatives available. This isn't in question.

What is in question is if *God* is constrained to Himself do bad things; specifically, to act contrary to the principles of His own government, to use force and violence. The answer is no. God, under no circumstances, acts contrary to the principles of His government, and this was clearly demonstrated by Jesus Christ.

Going back to people's destruction and death, let's assume, for the moment, that sin causes destruction and death in a myriad of ways, and that it takes God's active restraining to prevent these ill effects of sin from occurring. Isn't is clear, given this to be true, that there would be no necessity whatsoever for God Himself to actively do the things which sin causes? The only reason to postulate that God does these things is by believing that sin doesn't do these things.

And this is where the crux of our disagreement lies. Well, there's two parts here. One is that sin doesn't do these things, so God has to. The other is that God's character is such that He would do these things.

The part that we agree upon, however, is what you've been discussing here, that there are two undesirable alternatives, and God is constrained to allow some undesirable alternative to happen, and that God makes the best choice.

Yes, the place was full of those serpents, and God kept them back all that time. When God removed His protection, the people immediately felt the effect of the serpents from which they had been constantly shielded.

When God removed His protection, did He not expect the serpents to come? Was He surprised that they came? Or did He know full well what would happen?

Going back to eggs, without God's protection, are we any safer than those eggs hurtling toward the sidewalk below?

Or Strange act?

Yes, since the inception of sin God has had to do some evil deeds, or strange acts. And there has been "dirty work" to be done. What I see Tom as suggesting is that God has a lackey, the devil, who does the dirty work for Him. What I am suggesting is that if there is any dirty work to be done, God does it Himself. He doesn't have to hide behind anyone.
What Tom is saying is that God cannot act against the principles of His own government. But isn't a strange act exactly that? I don't see permiting the existence of evil as a principle of God's government. If it were, then evil wouldn't be evil, because all God's principles are good.

As I see it, it wasn't sin which caused the death of the Egyptian army, by Moses' act of stretching out his rod, making the sea which God had divided resume its flow. Indeed God ceased to protect the Egyptians, but He ceased to protect them from the consequences of something He did.

"Amid the wrath of the elements, in which they hear the voice of an angry God, they endeavor to retrace their steps and fly to the shore they have quitted. But Moses stretches out his rod, and the piled-up waters, hissing, roaring, and eager for their prey, tumble down upon the armies of Egypt." {4T 25.2}

i think it depends on ones perspective or angle they are looking from.

i was out watering the animals when i noticed the water was sure taking a long time to rise in one trough. picked up the hose and no water was coming out. went to check if i had mindlessly turned off the water as i was walking around checking out some of the critters. nope. came back to the house and no water in the house, either. but the electricity was still on so that wasnt the problem

it has me thinking. im grateful for the water, but how often do i thank Him that there is water in that well? how soon will that water no longer be there? so its more like we are delicate eggs in the hand of satan than in the hand of God? thats how i see it anyway. coming from one perspective we could see ourselves as eggs in Gods hand which He could crush in His hand or drop down the side of a building if He so chose.

but adding a different picture kills that one, for me. a picture of God on His hands and knees building man from the dirt then breathing into him the breath of life. turning around and doing it again, after adam noticed he was alone-and that is key-and building eve the same way.

i can never see ourselves as eggs in His hand as any possible example since that picture. eggs in satans hand, satan who could crush us or drop us down the side of a building? in a heartbeat!! God? no!!

the peoples were griping and grumbling about the least little thing, just like we do, instead of noticing all the miracles God was doing for them constantly, just like we dont. so God said, ok, backed off and showed them what He had been doing for them all along. so, was that a "punishment"? or a wake-up call?